What game theory teaches about war?

[Soumitra]

 

[Soumitra]

This is about US politics nd war but it can easily be about "war" between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan thinks that it has a finite objective (liberation of Kashmir) but is actually playing an infinite war. India realises that there is an infinite war because it cant trust the Pakistanis.

 

[Goenitz]

though the theory was proposed i guess in 1925.. anyway, his talk about millennials is also good..

 

[war&peace]

This is about US politics nd war but it can easily be about "war" between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan thinks that it has a finite objective (liberation of Kashmir) but is actually playing an infinite war. India realises that there is an infinite war because it cant trust the Pakistanis.

As usual a Bhindu pathological liars is spreading lies and vitiating the atmosphere here. In fact it is Pakistan who claims that Ganga-Pakistan war won't be limited rather it will be uncontrollable and will turn into a nuke war and this was conveyed very clearly by the hon. PM of Pakistan Imran Khan through his speech at UNGA. But the cheapo sewer rat is trying to reverse it.

 

[The Accountant]

This is about US politics nd war but it can easily be about "war" between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan thinks that it has a finite objective (liberation of Kashmir) but is actually playing an infinite war. India realises that there is an infinite war because it cant trust the Pakistanis.

Pakistan cant be trusted. It is not Pakistan who want a united sub-continent but the Indian RSS dream and objective ... sometime i wonder do Indians are really that ill informed or are they biggest liar ...

 

[Soumitra]

Pakistan cant be trusted. It is not Pakistan who want a united sub-continent but the Indian RSS dream and objective ... sometime i wonder do Indians are really that ill informed or are they biggest liar ...

Pakistan can't be trusted with stopping cross border terrorism.

In 99 when Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif were signing the Lahore Agreement Mussharaf was planning the Kargil War.

If we really wanted Akhand Bharat we could have taken over BD in 71.

We only want Pakistan Occupied Kashmir

 

[The Accountant]

Pakistan can't be trusted with stopping cross border terrorism.

In 99 when Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif were signing the Lahore Agreement Mussharaf was planning the Kargil War.

If we really wanted Akhand Bharat we could have taken over BD in 71.

We only want Pakistan Occupied Kashmir

Hahaha, in your dreams only.

Free Kashmir and there will be no freedom fighters. Kargil is also part of Kashmir dispute. Didn't you do the same in Sachin in 80s.

You couldnot annex Bangladesh as you never had international support only for insurgency not for take over. Without international support you were nothing and without Mukti Bani Indians were toothless.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hahaha, in your dreams only.

Free Kashmir and there will be no freedom fighters. Kargil is also part of Kashmir dispute. Didn't you do the same in Sachin in 80s.

You couldnot annex Bangladesh as you never had international support only for insurgency not for take over. Without international support you were nothing and without Mukti Bani Indians were toothless.

What brilliant reasons for every failure!

How sad that there has been no occasion to be modest about any success.

This proves that our western neighbours are an extremely intelligent, creative and fertile-minded people. No common sense and no sense of reality, but those are minor blemishes.

 

[The Accountant]

What brilliant reasons for every failure!

How sad that there has been no occasion to be modest about any success.

This proves that our western neighbours are an extremely intelligent, creative and fertile-minded people. No common sense and no sense of reality, but those are minor blemishes.

No, this proves that you are very good of changing history. Aren't you forgetting that you instrument of accession of Azad Jammu Kashmir but we are having it.

Aren't you forgetting even to start with the current India including Jamiat-e-Ulma-e-Hind was against creation of Pakistan but creation of Pakistan is the biggest failure on part of India. Remember India is not a new state but Pakistan is a new state never existed in history and is a prove of your failure of Indians to keep the subcontinent for themselves.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No, this proves that you are very good of changing history. Aren't you forgetting that you instrument of accession of Azad Jammu Kashmir but we are having it.

Errm, no, the ultra-nationalists keep reminding us about it, and jumping up and down (please don't take that phrase personally; it was with reference to OUR ultra-nationalists) and suggesting that it was Nehru's excessive propriety in hoping that the UNO would take a principled stand.

Since your knowledge of history is so sound, you probably also know that these regions, western Jammu as it was then, including Poonch, that was a principality subordinate to their relatives in the Jammu Raj, had declared their independence before the Indian Army came in on the 26th of October.

I note with some wonderment that some habits die hard, and the facts of the repulse of the irregulars, subsequently of the regulars, from the Vale, the forcing of the Zoji La using armour, the lifting of the siege of Leh, and the recapture of Kargil, and the successful defence of Poonch, all pale into insignificance before the pre-emptive holding of what you now call Azad Kashmir, and the Northern Territories.

Aren't you forgetting even to start with the current India including Jamiat-e-Ulma-e-Hind was against creation of Pakistan but creation of Pakistan is the biggest failure on part of India.

The greatest satisfaction I get is to hear the Pakistani die-hards echoing the words of the Hindu right-wing cartoons who have taken over my country. As the good book says, "Deep calls to deep"; you deserve one another.

You have evidently forgotten in your turn that Maulana (self-appointed) Maududi sneaked across to Pakistan, that he had despised so heartily in the build-up, and created a power centre for himself by leading attacks against the Ahmadiyyas. It probably means that you have also forgotten that this wretch was condemned to death by Pakistani courts of law, but the sentence was allowed to lapse by the Pakistani deep state, for reasons that require no further explanation. Of course, the fact that both Deobandis and Barelvis are fighting it out in Pakistan, and that Deobandis were originally the greatest opponents of Pakistan does not fail to slip past your eternal vigil.

No secular minded and decent Indian has any problem with the creation of Pakistan, as that is a seventy-year old established fact. It is only the frothing-at-the-mouth bhakts who deplore it, and it is only the otherwise disarmed Pakistani hyper-patriot who seizes upon the ubiquity of the bhakt on the social media to proclaim this to be the uniform policy of Indians in general, rather than a toxic element within Indian society.

If it gives you solace to pretend that all of India was against the creation of Pakistan, rather than the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS, please feel free to take refuge in this shelter; whatever floats your boat.

Remember India is not a new state but Pakistan is a new state never existed in history and is a prove of your failure of Indians to keep the subcontinent for themselves.

I must report you to @Indus Pakistan for suitable chastisement; Pakistan is not a new state, but existed for the last six thousand to five thousand five hundred years. You appear not to have got the memo.

The memo. goes on to bewail the loss of Pakistan's hegemony over the entire sub-continent. You really must bring your quondam allies back into your fold. What wonderful arguments you would be able to weave once you stop contradicting each other.

 

[The Accountant]

Errm, no, the ultra-nationalists keep reminding us about it, and jumping up and down (please don't take that phrase personally; it was with reference to OUR ultra-nationalists) and suggesting that it was Nehru's excessive propriety in hoping that the UNO would take a principled stand.

Since your knowledge of history is so sound, you probably also know that these regions, western Jammu as it was then, including Poonch, that was a principality subordinate to their relatives in the Jammu Raj, had declared their independence before the Indian Army came in on the 26th of October.

I note with some wonderment that some habits die hard, and the facts of the repulse of the irregulars, subsequently of the regulars, from the Vale, the forcing of the Zoji La using armour, the lifting of the siege of Leh, and the recapture of Kargil, and the successful defence of Poonch, all pale into insignificance before the pre-emptive holding of what you now call Azad Kashmir, and the Northern Territories.



The greatest satisfaction I get is to hear the Pakistani die-hards echoing the words of the Hindu right-wing cartoons who have taken over my country. As the good book says, "Deep calls to deep"; you deserve one another.

You have evidently forgotten in your turn that Maulana (self-appointed) Maududi sneaked across to Pakistan, that he had despised so heartily in the build-up, and created a power centre for himself by leading attacks against the Ahmadiyyas. It probably means that you have also forgotten that this wretch was condemned to death by Pakistani courts of law, but the sentence was allowed to lapse by the Pakistani deep state, for reasons that require no further explanation. Of course, the fact that both Deobandis and Barelvis are fighting it out in Pakistan, and that Deobandis were originally the greatest opponents of Pakistan does not fail to slip past your eternal vigil.

No secular minded and decent Indian has any problem with the creation of Pakistan, as that is a seventy-year old established fact. It is only the frothing-at-the-mouth bhakts who deplore it, and it is only the otherwise disarmed Pakistani hyper-patriot who seizes upon the ubiquity of the bhakt on the social media to proclaim this to be the uniform policy of Indians in general, rather than a toxic element within Indian society.

If it gives you solace to pretend that all of India was against the creation of Pakistan, rather than the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS, please feel free to take refuge in this shelter; whatever floats your boat.



I must report you to @Indus Pakistan for suitable chastisement; Pakistan is not a new state, but existed for the last six thousand to five thousand five hundred years. You appear not to have got the memo.

The memo. goes on to bewail the loss of Pakistan's hegemony over the entire sub-continent. You really must bring your quondam allies back into your fold. What wonderful arguments you would be able to weave once you stop contradicting each other.

So much reasoning and explanation. In your previous post you were disagreeing to me on the circumstances that leads to creation of Bangladesh but on the very next post you start explaining circumstances that leads to creation of Pakistan and freedom of Azad Jammu Kashmir.

You completely ignored the fact that congress was and is a secular party and was completely against creation of Pakistan but failed to stop the same despite keep on trying hard till the end.

In case of Bangladesh, win is a win, no matter what are the circumstances but in case of creation of Pakistan and freedom of Azad Jammu Kashmir we have to through historical facts.

Well done.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So much reasoning and explanation. In your previous post you were disagreeing to me on the circumstances that leads to creation of Bangladesh but on the very next post you start explaining circumstances that leads to creation of Pakistan and freedom of Azad Jammu Kashmir.

LOL.
When tracking a grasshopper, did you expect a lion's cadence?

You completely ignored the fact that congress was and is a secular party and was completely against creation of Pakistan but failed to stop the same despite keep on trying hard till the end.

Bad history.

I have already pointed out that both the Congress and the Muslim League had - both reluctantly - accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. Staying together was distasteful to the leaders of the Congress Party who had suffered the intransigence of the Muslim League leaders during their ill-starred joint administration prior to independence. The Congress was, and, perhaps, is a secular party, but not a violent party. Clearly, their experiences through 1946 showed that working together in administration was impossible. That will explain why Nehru said what he did in his July 1946 that precipitated the League's final rejection of any kind of joint administration and insistence on partition. At that point, only Gandhi opposed partition; the Congress leaders were more than happy to agree, in order to get rid of an increasingly intransigent opponent.

You may like to consult those among your ranks who know a little more about the history of the freedom movement and of partition. @SoulSpokesman , if he is still your member, can connect you to YLH, who will not appear on this forum, but who has forgotten more about that history than most members here (@niaz Sahib excluded) will be able to recall.

In case of Bangladesh, win is a win, no matter what are the circumstances but in case of creation of Pakistan and freedom of Azad Jammu Kashmir we have to through historical facts.

Well done.

I gather through these disjointed passages that you are congratulating yourself on a victory won. I refer you to the destruction of the mock fort of Bundi by a rival Rajput monarch, but must caution you that the role of the lone Hada guarding that mockery is not one that I aspire to.

However, let me join you in your sincere praise of yourself. Perhaps, in your victory parade, you might find this music apt, of course, as an anthem, not as a marching tune; after so many victories, you must be sick of marching:

PS: Best wishes for Dussehra, as the north Indians term it, or Vijaya Dashami, as we from the east prefer.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistan is not a new state

There is lot here for me to chew on. So I will leave the full reply for later but you touched on the what is Pakistan all about. Of course there is no clear understanding on this, that can hold itself to critical analysis. I have mine. Others have theirs and the contradiction is at the very heart of the malaise you see in Pakistan.

With regards to Kashmir I have slowly come to the conclusion that it was the failure of Pakistan's leadership at the critical point in time [1947-48] that led to India gaining the Kashmir it has. What would have taken a brigade and troop of light scout vehicles not can't be done with million men, 5,000 tanks and entire armies.

I am even apt to be harsh of Jinnah but perhaps his health trammeled his ability to fully look after Pakistan's interests. But all his underlings deserve to be hung and drawn in history books of Pakistan. And even South Asia for creating a 70 year, now a nuclear sore.

*If Pakistan is about Islam [which is a universal religion for all mankind for all times] why are only some Muslims citizens but other not? Why are other Muslims not citizens but local Christians or Sikhs citizens? This is a huge contradiction that nobody has ever addressed properly.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is lot here for me to chew on. So I will leave the full reply for later but you touched on the what is Pakistan all about. Of course there is no clear understanding on this, that can hold itself to critical analysis. I have mine. Others have theirs and the contradiction is at the very heart of the malaise you see in Pakistan.

With regards to Kashmir I have slowly come to the conclusion that it was the failure of Pakistan's leadership at the critical point in time [1947-48] that led to India gaining the Kashmir it has. What would have taken a brigade and troop of light scout vehicles not can't be done with million men, 5,000 tanks and entire armies.

I am even apt to be harsh of Jinnah but perhaps his health trammeled his ability to fully look after Pakistan's interests. But all his underlings deserve to be hung and drawn in history books of Pakistan. And even South Asia for creating a 70 year, now a nuclear sore.

*If Pakistan is about Islam [which is a universal religion for all mankind for all times] why are only some Muslims citizens but other not? Why are other Muslims not citizens but local Christians or Sikhs citizens? This is a huge contradiction that nobody has ever addressed properly.

You leave me dazzled, as so often in the past. Not for nothing do I say that I read your posts with the greatest respect and humility, along with those of @niaz Sahib and (the old) @Oscar. My respectful regards.

There is nothing I have to add on this subject, that started with badinage and ended so unexpectedly. Anything further is anti-climax.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

My

I am glad you liked my reply. As you know already I have high respect for you from many years of 'fencing' we had. My entire education and thought has been constructed within the British system. My interest in Pakistan began from late teens. I had deeply been effected by 1971 event because I saw my parents concerned [we had family in the army back in PK] and built hatred for Banglas. Shows how kids can imbibe their environment at home. Where am I going with this? My outlook on Pakistan is almost like a outsider. I developed as a adult and then got to know Pakistan. Therefore my views always will be minority. But then so was Rehmat Ali, Jinnah or the great Iqbal. All had been significantly formed abroad.

But one question that I asked my dad maybe when I was about 19 but never got a full answer. If Pakistan is homeland of Muslims. Why are some Muslims citizens but some not? Do we have a brahmin caste system in Pakistan that privilages some with citizenship and not others. Then to complicate things further it has citizenship to some non Muslims. These facts cannot sit with "Pakistan is homeland of Muslims".

Israel is homeland of Jews but then it will accept any Jew from any corner of earth. The only visa they need at Tel Aviv is "I am a Jew".