The reason cited for Kargil was the same. WoT will not have a solution to Kashmir, 2 different things.Neo said:I'm not hinting at any military advantures a la Kargill.
Putting diplomatic pressure on the states and other major powers and link Kashmir solution to WoT!!!
LeT was recognized a terror orgn but that has never stopped them from mounting attacks against India. Let and JeM's heads are still in Pakistan enjoying freedom. Thats not a victory for us. Compare that to what Pakistan gained from WoT.India gained here politically. LeT and other organisations were recognised as terrorist organisations as result for successful Indian compaign.
India got worlds sympathy and could affort to send upto 500.000 troops into Kashmir.
Thats why the majority wants to take a pound from their major supporters... Pakistan.Its a possibilty.
It was a simple scenario, and all I wanted was a Yes/No answerDepends on the grounds of provocation. Iran has ethnic ties with Balochistan but no border dispute and vice versa. If Pakistan invades Iran, takes over Chahbahar for example and illegally claims it than Iran has a case to ratalliate.
We have no beef with them so the scenario is unlikely to take place.
We actually have bigger heads to chop, so a lowly Pakistani terrorist is not in the main radar.If you catch a Pakistani terrorist linked to the blasts, I sincerely hope you hang him.
Exactly, you cannot do a offensive on both fronts, while India can and India will. Its no point for Pakistan to make an ofensive in Kashmir and believe India would try to defend just in Kashmir..aka reasons for 1965 war.I believe we cannot launch offensives on both front, I never said we'd be unable to defend if one started by India.
And failed to reach your Op Obj.We defended three fronts in 1965.