Pakistan's growing arsenal NYT editorial

[Nefarious]

Paid to write, that is all.

 

[Ifteqar Aisan]

I agree..

So..India's effort to reduce tension will not stop pakistan accumulating the ummah bomb..and Indians aren't foolish enough to fall for that tactic.

The answer should not lie in living in denial, but in thinking forward constructively. India wants to have everything its own way, which is not possible. If they want international pressure on Pakistan to curb its nuclear program, they must also be okay with international involvement in bringing peace. "Let India and Pakistan solve all issues through bilateral discussion" is the same as saying "let South Asia blow up for all we care".

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I'm really happy and elated at the article. If the jew york times is putting an article against Pakistan's nuclear program than Pakistan MUST be doing something very right.

 

[Ifteqar Aisan]

I'm really happy and elated at the article. If the jew york times is putting an article against Pakistan's nuclear program than Pakistan MUST be doing something very right.

Our combined hatred of the Jew, the Hindu, the Christian, the Shia, the Sikh, the liberal, the atheist, the secular, the homosexual, etc. etc. etc. is never-ending. We need to limit that list or soon we will run out of people to hate.

 

[illusion8]

The answer should not lie in living in denial, but in thinking forward constructively. India wants to have everything its own way, which is not possible. If they want international pressure on Pakistan to curb its nuclear program, they must also be okay with international involvement in bringing peace. "Let India and Pakistan solve all issues through bilateral discussion" is the same as saying "let South Asia blow up for all we care".

This discussion has been done hundreds of times before on pdf and. .posters from India and pakistan rarely come to a concensus on it.

India's nukes are not meant for pakistan...India started on its nuke program way back in the 60's and conducted its first test in 74..It was specifically meant as a counter to Chinese hegemony. So Pakistan's nukes are it's own problem..nothing to do with us.

Our stand is clear...If pakistan wants war...it gets war..If it wants our nukes it gets our nukes.

We don't internationalise our issues when we don't interfere in others issues....(Our immediate neighbors..yes only to an extent once in a while) we don't accept anyone else's interference in ours.

 

[Ifteqar Aisan]

This discussion has been done hundreds of times before on pdf and. .posters from India and pakistan rarely come to a concensus on it.

India's nukes are not meant for pakistan...India started on its nuke program way back in the 60's and conducted is first test in 74..It was specifically meant as a counter to Chinese hegemony. So Pakistan's nukes are it's own problem..nothing do with us.

Our stand is clear...If pakistan wants war...it gets war..If it wants our nukes it gets our nukes.

We don't internationalise our issues when we don't interfere in others issues....(Our immediate neighbors..yes only to an extent once in a while) we don't accept anyone else's interference in ours.

I am afraid, things are not so simple. An offer to negotiate on a "take it or leave it" basis is neither an offer, nor a negotiation. Both sides need to make concessions. Suppose Pakistan were to make the concession that it has, for the time being, accepted the status quo on Kashmir. Shouldn't the Indian government then initiate dialogue on other issues. Even Pakistan needs to save face, doesn't it? What is the point of sparring with an adversary that has nothing to lose?

Calling for international participation in the dialogue is not as optional as you might think. Relations between both countries have deteriorated to such an extent that talking without the presence of third parties is pointless - too much distrust in the air. The only other option to international participation would be no dialogue.

 

[nForce]

I am afraid, things are not so simple. An offer to negotiate on a "take it or leave it" basis is neither an offer, nor a negotiation. Both sides need to make concessions. Suppose Pakistan were to make the concession that it has, for the time being, accepted the status quo on Kashmir. Shouldn't the Indian government then initiate dialogue on other issues. Even Pakistan needs to save face, doesn't it? What is the point of sparring with an adversary that has nothing to lose?

Calling for international participation in the dialogue is not as optional as you might think. Relations between both countries have deteriorated to such an extent that talking without the presence of third parties is pointless - too much distrust in the air. The only other option to international participation would be no dialogue.

You are mistaking with the very basic. Who is negotiating any more ? There is a time frame for everything.

 

[illusion8]

I am afraid, things are not so simple. An offer to negotiate on a "take it or leave it" basis is neither an offer, nor a negotiation. Both sides need to make concessions. Suppose Pakistan were to make the concession that it has, for the time being, accepted the status quo on Kashmir. Shouldn't the Indian government then initiate dialogue on other issues. Even Pakistan needs to save face, doesn't it? What is the point of sparring with an adversary that has nothing to lose?

Calling for international participation in the dialogue is not as optional as you might think. Relations between both countries have deteriorated to such an extent that talking without the presence of third parties is pointless - too much distrust in the air. The only other option to international participation would be no dialogue.

If you read up on what the UN general sec says or what the Americans say or what anyone that Pakistan approaches says...you will notice a set pattern.."till India asks for mediation - we are afraid we can not do anything".

Our stand has been consistent throughout since 1972 when pakistan signed the Shimla accord..We do not appreciate any third party mediation in our affairs - until we ask for it.

 

[Ifteqar Aisan]

If you read up on what the UN general sec says or what the Americans say or what anyone that Pakistan approaches says...you will notice a set pattern.."till India asks for mediation - we are afraid we can not do anything".

Our stand has been consistent throughout since 1972 when pakistan signed the Shimla accord..We do not appreciate any third party mediation in our affairs - until we ask for it.

Then I am afraid you are making the same mistake that you accuse Pakistanis of making - allowing your prejudice to get the better of you. The Shimla Agreement does not preclude India from making an attempt at peace, does it? What is the realistic scenario wherein both parties could resolve disputes satisfactorily without international presence? Wasn't there an outcry in India on Sharm-al-Sheik, just as there was in Pakistan on Ufa. Were both governments not forced to disown their own words under pressure? Which means only one thing - calling for bilateral dialogue is the same as saying there will be none.

Maybe you are operating under the fixed notion that everything revolves around the fixed axis of Kashmir. Look outside that box for once. If you think that Pakistan is not sincere about peace, then what is required to expose that is to call Pakistan's bluff on all issues. The Indian government could have done that a long time back. What is the Indian threshold for deciding whether or not "enough" has been done on terrorism by Pakistan? All too convenient if one does not want to talk, any party with sincerity would immediately realize that.

 

[nForce]

Then I am afraid you are making the same mistake that you accuse Pakistanis of making - allowing your prejudice to get the better of you. The Shimla Agreement does not preclude India from making an attempt at peace, does it? What is the realistic scenario wherein both parties could resolve disputes satisfactorily without international presence? Wasn't there an outcry in India on Sharm-al-Sheik, just as there was in Pakistan on Ufa. Were both governments not forced to disown their own words under pressure? Which means only one thing - calling for bilateral dialogue is the same as saying there will be none.

Maybe you are operating under the fixed notion that everything revolves around the fixed axis of Kashmir. Look outside that box for once. If you think that Pakistan is not sincere about peace, then what is required to expose that is to call Pakistan's bluff on all issues. The Indian government could have done that a long time back. What is the Indian threshold for deciding whether or not "enough" has been done on terrorism by Pakistan? All too convenient if one does not want to talk, any party with sincerity would immediately realize that.

Pakistan is so sincere about peace that we had 26/11 and Osama was hiding near a military base in Pakistan. Makes perfect sense. And nowadays, the Mullah that India had to release as a result of the IC-814 hijacking is running a full-fledged camp in Pakistan. Hijackers, terrorists, mass murderers ? makes perfect sense alright.

 

[iioal malik]

USA NyT and Indian lobby both can suck long hard lollipop....we don't give a single fk...

Pakistan was created by bigger and more
solid vision then India and USA.. stop the bs n move forward

 

[illusion8]

Then I am afraid you are making the same mistake that you accuse Pakistanis of making - allowing your prejudice to get the better of you. The Shimla Agreement does not preclude India from making an attempt at peace, does it? What is the realistic scenario wherein both parties could resolve disputes satisfactorily without international presence? Wasn't there an outcry in India on Sharm-al-Sheik, just as there was in Pakistan on Ufa. Were both governments not forced to disown their own words under pressure? Which means only one thing - calling for bilateral dialogue is the same as saying there will be none.

Maybe you are operating under the fixed notion that everything revolves around the fixed axis of Kashmir. Look outside that box for once. If you think that Pakistan is not sincere about peace, then what is required to expose that is to call Pakistan's bluff on all issues. The Indian government could have done that a long time back. What is the Indian threshold for deciding whether or not "enough" has been done on terrorism by Pakistan? All too convenient if one does not want to talk, any party with sincerity would immediately realize that.

As I said..This is an old argument and has run its course a thousand times on pdf or elsewhere in newsrooms too. There have been umpteen bilateral talks and it has always ended up in disaster...mysteriously cross border firing increases..or there is a Kargil invasion...or there is a terrorist attack on Indian soil...or there is a dharna kind of drama where your establishment threatens to takeover if the friendly overtures aren't cut off.

Hafiz Sayeed threatens that there can be no compromise on Kashmir and the civilian govt backs off..

The issue is with the number of power centers ..The right power center is the Pakistani army and India as policy does not engage with it...neither do the khakhis want a resolution because it deprives them of their bread and butter..its clearly understood that the pakistani army runs pakistan's foreign policy..and until they come on board directly for talks. .wasting time on the civilian setup...is just that...A waste of time.

For e.g. whatever happened in Ufa when your civilian setup signed on the dotted kine that terrorism will be the first point of discussion..which was overridden by your establishment the moment it came in the open..hence..discussion gets cut off.

Manmohan, Vajpayee, Gujral all made their attempts with talks..but had to face defeat. The present Indian govt has made it a policy that only when pakistan abandons it's anti India terror proxies will they be interested in any talks. .and that's their stand.

 

[Ifteqar Aisan]

Pakistan is so sincere about peace that we had 26/11 and Osama was hiding near a military base in Pakistan. Makes perfect sense. And nowadays, the Mullah that India had to release as a result of the IC-814 hijacking is running a full-fledged camp in Pakistan. Hijackers, terrorists, mass murderers ? makes perfect sense alright.

Dialogue is conducted on a set agenda, based upon the wish to achieve desired objectives. Giving and receiving certificates of good conduct have no place in it. What matters is that the objectives are achieved. and in order to do so, the parties need to be realistic and indulge in some give-and-take. That's how politics works. And that is how international diplomacy works as well. At least let the Indian government make an offer that is genuine enough. Then they can be truthful in their claim that they tried, not otherwise.

 

[Haroon Baloch]

I think, I remember you making the same argument some where else. India is 8 times larger than Pakistan so 1:1 is illogical to say the least and then as regarding Kashmir as a Nuclear flash point, I don't think and neither do the world. World is more concerned about nuclear bombs falling with rogue army general or a terrorist group.

Among 25 countries with weapons-grade nuclear materials, Pakistan was ranked 22 (46 points out of 100) where as India ranked 23 (41 points out of 100).

“Pakistan, which improved its score by three points compared to 2012,” the NTI report says, “demonstrated the largest improvement of any nuclear-armed state. Pakistan is taking steps to update its nuclear security regulations and to implement nuclear security best practices.”

 

[Ifteqar Aisan]

USA NyT and Indian lobby both can suck long hard lollipop....we don't give a single fk...

Pakistan was created by bigger and more
solid vision then India and USA.. stop the bs n move forward

How old are you?