Retaliation against Pakistan is warranted

[Imran Khan]

talk and talk and talk waste on time nothing more .

 

[CZAR]

I will tell you a secret . Whenever , during a war , the troops come to know that a ceasefire will be declared soon , they try to attack and capture more areas with higher aggression than usual so they can have an upper hand during negotiations . Think of it , if Lahore , believing your version of history to be true , was about to be captured , then what stopped the Indians from doing so ? Please , dont tell me that a ceasefire was to declared the other day and the Indian Army was at the outskirts of Lahore and decided to turn back because of the ceasefire , because it doesn't make sense . If you were in a position to take that city , you would have , to gain an advantage in the ensuing Shimla agreement .

Oh please stop massaging hurt pride. The oft-repeated claims of success in fending off the the indian offensive against lahore and claims of Pak's air force superiority are like the go-to arguments, it appears, for saving face for the embarrassment that 1965 was.

Congratulations for holding on to Lahore. Glad your army could manage to hold on to one city as opposed to wild fantasies of holding sway over kashmir by way of Op. gibraltor and Op. grand slam.

Only a fool who dares to look at the contest in lahore in isolation would care to wave it around as a badge of honor.

 

[Secur]

Only a fool who dares to look at the contest in lahore in isolation would care to wave it around as a badge of honor.

Only a fool wouldn't see , what the person was replying to and then start to claim victory in a conflict which ended in ' stalemate ' against a nation fives times larger in size . To enlighten you , the argument of ' Lahore was about to be captured ' was put by a member , in isolation , which I was refuting

We haven't talked much so may be that's why you said what you said...I usually don't allow my sanity to be overpowered by my emotions...anyways..let me deal with rest of your post

Mate , you have proven otherwise in your last post . I cant really understand the reason for ' going on the offensive ' and ' getting so emotional ' for no reason . I wasn't defending anything , just pointing the flaws in the article and in the MO of the Indian media .

 

[Bang Galore]

The fact however is that it was an inconclusive war, with no real outcome.

What was the aim behind the war? Too many people read wars as some sort of a consolation prize for something not achieved. It is why many in Pakistan go blue saying that they hold some peak after the Kargil war. That wasn't the original aim & does not qualify as victory. Same with 1965. The aim was for Pakistan to get Kashmir. It didn't work. Hence failure. Look at it another way. How are the two leaders of the respective countries thought of, both then & now? Shastri & Ayub Khan? Whose image is better? That will tell you who did better.

Lahore is irrelevant. No on India was/is claiming Lahore, not then & not now.

 

[CZAR]

Only a fool wouldn't see , what the person was replying to and then start to claim victory in a conflict which ended in ' stalemate ' against a nation fives times larger in size . To enlighten you , the argument of ' Lahore was about to be captured ' was put by a member , in isolation , which I was refuting

Why blame the size differential AFTER the conflict?

Did this most obvious fact escape the pak army while they had been contemplating op gibraltar and op grandslam? Was the pak army not aware that India looks "kinda bigger than us"?

If one were to base arguments on the premise, that there was an inherent disadvantage in trying to initiate (and pak DID initiate) a conflict against a larger opponent, and if the pak army still continued on the path - wouldn't that be considered as a gross negligence of the risk-reward ratio and hence, another embarrassment and failure for the pak army?

But judging from the comments of the highest officer of the pak army that - the hindu morale wouldn't stand more than a couple of blows at the right time and place - one can infer that he didn't make much of the size differential and treated the Indian defences with not only as something that wasn't at par, but rather inferior.

Quite frankly, pak likes to wrap itself into this logical fallacy of the size differential to save face. To get into a brawl with somebody bigger, then complain after getting beat down that the opponent was bigger - sounds stupid, whichever way you choose to spin it. Damn right the opponent was bigger - a discovery enabled by the magic of sight!!

But pak tends to take it another level. Not only does pak complain, but pak expects credit and praise for having the balls to have picked a fight with a bigger opponent. This should be moved the "funny" section.

Facts are quite simple - call it martial race inspired arrogance - but pak picked a fight in 1965, with all its resources and confidence, and sought to wrestle away kashmir. The indian forces had a simple mandate - to push back the pak offensive. At the end of the conflict, status quo was maintained - which clearly implies that India had successfully defended its borders and repulsed the attack by the aggressors and was victorious, with respect to the mandate that the Indian army had been served with.

Compare this to pak and one gets a picture of absolute failure, with a few silver linings. Linings being lahore and the performance of the pak airforce. But both these linings did little to change the outcome that the objectives as set out in the beginning not were NOT realized. Hence, a failure or a loss.

Having set out to score in kashmir, and ending up defending borders and lahore in the south - looks pathetic, as it should.

Of course, we can play over semantics all day with use of words such as "inconclusive", "stalemate" but it does little to change the facts on the ground.

 

[Bang Galore]

Now India says Pakistani soldiers came deep into Indian territory and killed 5 Indian soldiers, and all India is doing is cancelling a meeting?

China-India has not reached the levels of Pakistan- India. This is a brutal conflict and by all accounts, the Indian army is ruthless when paying back in the same coin.

 

[Areesh]

You read too much of Indian media it seems, apart from 1971, where CFR [Combatant Force Ratio] was 1-25 in favor of India, all other conflicts were inconclusive.

In 1965 India claimed Over 1,840 km2 of territory as compared to 540 km2 of Pakistans, which were reversed as the result of UN mandated ceasefire. Given the force Ratio, it cannot be regarded as a victory.

Now before, you come with your 'Pakistan propaganda claims', i suggest you read the following pieces.

Greater Game: India's Race with Destiny and China by David Van Praagh

A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947, by Johnson, Robert.

PAF's claims on IAF were dualy verified by by General Chuck Yegar and John Fricker, repeatedly.


Living in a historic fallacy is always -well- sad.



How did you reach that conclusion?

Indians think that by forcing Pakistan to focus on other fronts of Punjab and Rajhastan instead of Kashmir operations and thus saving Kashmir at that time is a victory of India. They don't care if IAF was paralyzed by PAF or IN was non functional during the whole war. They even don't care that IAF was in such a situation where it cannot even rescue aircraft of then Gujrat CM from PAF aircraft inside Indian territory. Strange definition of victory but for them it is a victory.

When India backed down in front of China after the 3-week "incursion" into Ladakh, I thought it may have been a fluke.

Indian troops suspend patrols at Chumar - Times Of India

Now India says Pakistani soldiers came deep into Indian territory and killed 5 Indian soldiers, and all India is doing is cancelling a meeting?

Well you guys should be happy. Whole India is focused on Pakistan right now. You can continue with your policy of silently and peacefully changing LAC in your favor.

 

[Bang Galore]

Strange definition of victory but for them it is a victory.

Even stranger that someone starts a war to get Kashmir & then settles for "consolation" prizes. Wars are not boxing matches where you can comment on a feint here, an upper cut there..... Your aims were not achieved, that means you lost. Indian aims were to make you withdraw from Indian Kashmir. That was achieved. Hence victory. Simple.

 

[runa moosani]

I am scaring,india can destroy pakistan

All indians here,your grandfathers also saw this dream but it still not come true and will never ever.

 

[Trisonics]

Indians think that by forcing Pakistan to focus on other fronts of Punjab and Rajhastan instead of Kashmir operations and thus saving Kashmir at that time is a victory of India.

Super lame argument. regardless. Kashmir remains with India and Pakistan's objective failed.

They don't care if IAF was paralyzed by PAF or IN was non functional during the whole war. They even don't care that IAF was in such a situation where it cannot even rescue aircraft of then Gujrat CM from PAF aircraft inside Indian territory. Strange definition of victory but for them it is a victory.

Again did the super-duper PAF help in full filling the objective? No. Fail!

Well you guys should be happy. Whole India is focused on Pakistan right now.

Any soldier's death that was needless should be and will be protested in India. Whats wrong with that?

 

[Areesh]

Even stranger that someone starts a war to get Kashmir & then settles for "consolation" prizes. Wars are not boxing matches where you can comment on a feint here, an upper cut there..... Your aims were not achieved, that means you lost. Indian aims were to make you withdraw from Indian Kashmir. That was achieved. Hence victory. Simple.

You just forced a much smaller country to focus on other fronts hence naturally due to limited resources they couldn't focused on the initial front. Any country with more resources can do that. In the process of defending disputed territory you lost settled territory to the enemy. Even in the disputed territory you had to return the gains you made there like capturing of Haji Pir pass in exchange for the Pakistani gains in the chamb sector.

Super lame argument. regardless. Kashmir remains with India and Pakistan's objective failed.

Yes 55% of Kashmir is with India. And i don't know what is lame in that. Indians believe in that argument. I was presenting Indian argument if you have read the post properly. If you think it is lame. Yes it definitely is.

Again did the super-duper PAF help in full filling the objective? No. Fail!

It helped PA to save major cities right next to the border like Sialkot and Lahore. Not bad I guess.

Any soldier's death that was needless should be and will be protested in India. Whats wrong with that?

Nothing. Just saying China would be happy with all this.

 

[Bang Galore]

You just forced a much smaller country to focus on other fronts hence naturally due to limited resources they couldn't focused on the initial front. Any country with more resources can do that. In the process of defending disputed territory you lost settled territory to the enemy. Even in the disputed territory you had to return the gains you made there like capturing of Haji Pir pass in exchange for the Pakistani gains in the chamb sector.

Doesn't matter whether you were smaller. Wars are not fought on weight classes. You picked your enemy & decided you want to fight. At the end of the day, you achieved none of your aims. It could reasonably be argued that you forced india to cut you down to size in 1971 because of your agression in 1965. Some victory this. It is a bit like arguing that the germans won world war 2 because the acquitted themselves well in some individual battles. That is not how a war is seen. Certainly not how it is seen by everyone else.

It doesn't matter what gains were returned, it wasn't India's aim to start a conflict. Standstill is always a loss for someone who started out hoping for more. That is why Kargil is a loss too. Indians still sit on Siachen and Kashmir as a whole is as far from your lap as it was before, if not further. Hence loss.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well you guys should be happy. Whole India is focused on Pakistan right now. You can continue with your policy of silently and peacefully changing LAC in your favor.

We'll take it in turns I guess.

Though I am curious to see whether or not India will one day work up the nerve to shoot and kill any Chinese soldiers during one of these so-called "Chinese incursions".

Of course, that will instantly lead to another Sino-Indian War.

 

[Trisonics]

You just forced a much smaller country to focus on other fronts hence naturally due to limited resources they couldn't focused on the initial front. Any country with more resources can do that. In the process of defending disputed territory you lost settled territory to the enemy. Even in the disputed territory you had to return the gains you made there like capturing of Haji Pir pass in exchange for the Pakistani gains in the chamb sector.



Yes 55% of Kashmir is with India. And i don't know what is lame in that. Indians believe in that argument. I was presenting Indian argument if you have read the post properly. If you think it is lame. Yes it definitely is.



It helped PA to save major cities right next to the border like Sialkot and Lahore. Not bad I guess.



Nothing. Just saying China would be happy with all this.

You have every right to celebrate piecemeal victories or achievements of a particular soldier or a group of brave soldiers but putting them ahead of an unfavorable outcome in many ways may only soothe a low moral but does not change the fact that the desired outcome was not achieved.

The smaller country, many fronts argument only proves that your leaders and planners lacked war acumen.

 

[Areesh]

Doesn't matter whether you were smaller. Wars are not fought on weight classes. You picked your enemy & decided you want to fight. At the end of the day, you achieved none of your aims. It could reasonably be argued that you forced india to cut you down to size in 1971 because of your agression in 1965. Some victory this. It is a bit like arguing that the germans won world war 2 because the acquitted themselves well in some individual battles. That is not how a war is seen. Certainly not how it is seen by everyone else.

It doesn't matter what gains were returned, it wasn't India's aim to start a conflict. Standstill is always a loss for someone who started out hoping for more. That is why Kargil is a loss too. Indians still sit on Siachen and Kashmir as a whole is as far from your lap as it was before, if not further. Hence loss.

Fair enough. You can keep considering it a victory. For us the outcome of that war was inconclusive. And I think we have enough reasons for that.