The General and Kargil

#148 by zeemacaca the Bhand

Hahaha...now I`m convinced you don`t know the heads and tails of what you`re arguing about...LOL!!

Because it was NOT meant to be a limited war ... see now?

If it was not meant to be a limited war, why were macacas in Macaca-bad jumping up and down like you`re doing here complaining that the Indian response was disproportionate? Could it be because Macacas got more than they had bargained for? Macacas hadn`t exactly foreseen that the IAF would bomb the cr@p out of them, no?

Pak response in case of (1) Inflict casualties.

Aww..really? If Macaca-stan`s plan was merely to inflict casualties in case India merely attempted to get back the occupied peak, then what was the deal about escalating the conflict to a nuclear exchange? Is it because the Macaca generals in Macaca-pindi were cr@pping in their pants because the conflict had gotten out of their hand?

And pray tell us if Macaca-stan were indeed winning, why did Nawaz Sharif (on Mushy`s suggestion) run like a scared rabbit to Washington on a 4th of July? Winning nations don`t exactly run around to beg a reprieve, do they?

BTW, is that pic yours or is it your son`s? Now I know why you didn`t post it on your profile.

#147 by hideous_macaca

Hahaha .... Lol ....macaca blurts:

Answer this question: if Macaca-stan was indeed winning, why think of escalation? Didn`t we always hear macacas complain that it was meant to be a limited war and all that?

Because it was NOT meant to be a limited war ... see now? The entire plan was based on inviting the macacians to cross the LOC....which they chickened out to do.

See macaca, the plan was as follows:

Phase 1: Capture and hold route 1-A to Siachen.
Macacia would have two options: (1) Take casulaties and try to recapture; or (2) cross LOC to put pressure to withdraw. Pak response in case of (1) Inflict casualties. In case of (2) draw them in without much resistance where they`ll be sitting ducks and then nuke them with a small tactical warhead! Perfectly legitimate because they would be invaders.

Macacia chose the first option and took casualties, but could not dislodge Paks for 2 months, so decided on naval blockade.

Phase 2: Siege broken with short range conventional shore-to ship missiles. Macacians cross LOC, nuked inside Pak territory.

Phase 3:Two choices for macacia: (1) Prepare biggie nukes for cities and invite pre-emptive strikes; or (2) lose and give up Siachen and Kashmir.

Unfortunately it didn`t get to that poin this time around, but there`ll be other...

See now? I guess not BEACAUSE YOU ARE A:
. ,****,
.((@..@))
.. ``(--)``

#109 by zeemacaca the Bhand

Abey macaca, if Pak was losing why was it readying the nukes which in any case was for escalation?

Precisely because it was losing, dear Bhand Macaca. Macaca-stan thought it would have India by the scruff of its neck, instead it turned out to be the other way. Answer this question: if Macaca-stan was indeed winning, why think of escalation? Didn`t we always hear macacas complain that it was meant to be a limited war and all that?

krishna: How do you determine who wins an argument?

actually, both sides always lose in an argument. from chowk it seems most desi babus - whether it is you or echoboom - live in a make-believe world.

#123 by Salim_Chauhan

The reason that you always lose any argument with me is not because you are not smart. It is because you are trying to defend the indefensible.

Here`s yet another example:

[The Paki hordes that you are referring to were Jihadists from NWFP and as Wana teaches us today, Pakistan has never been able to dictate to these wild tribesmen. Their actions in Baramula and failure to occupy the airport directly resulted in the loss of the valley to India for the Kashmiris.]

This is the same lie the Jinnah government told at the United Nations.

Tell me, why then did they choose to include that part of Kashmir as Pakistani territory? They could just have honoured the treaty, instead of consolidating their position and making it ``officially`` part of Pakistan.



[As for violence while the ``King`` was pondering his decision, do you remember the ``Police Action`` against the Nizam of Hyderabad or the Nawab of Junagadh? ]

I suggest you read some history books before looking for ``root`` causes.

Pakis invaded the Princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947.

The Hyderabad police action ended after five days on September 17, 1948.



Instead of defending Paki/Islamic/Jehadi positions as taught in Paki schools and madrassas, why don`t you educate yourself for a change?

The truth IS important. Even if it hurts. And check your facts before you argue.

IMO indian army took a good beating in terms of losses of jawans and afsars (its acknowledged in indian accounts)..but what was getting paki army anxious was measured air-power demonstrated. i dont think indians would have sent an occupying army, they would have merely started more air incursions on supply lines on PoK, and with limited air force of pakis, low on spares (and prolly a reluctant airforce) this was not an escalation they wanted.

over to you HP.

reality: female of the canine species..

General Pervez Musharraf
Military misjudgment

In short, heaven forbid that anyone unfamiliar with Pakistan should wholly trust this book. General Musharraf is as partial as any campaigning politician. One monstrous example is his account of a short war with India at Kargil in 1999, when he was merely army chief. It began when Pakistani state-sponsored jihadist militants attacked across the front-line in contested Kashmir, drawing a ferocious Indian response. General Musharraf calls this an over-reaction—but if it were, it was understandable—and he says that India`s army came off worse in the fray, even to the point where the military ran out of coffins for their dead. Yet he omits to mention the hundreds—some say thousands—of Pakistani fighters who were slaughtered in a humiliating retreat.

Disingenuously, he says the war at Kargil was an important catalyst in the peace process that followed: if that is true, it is because Pakistan, not India, was forced to the table by the drubbing it took there.

As usual, reality shows it`s well known bias against the pakis..

The US version of Kargil

Zinni`s book, ``Battle Ready`` written with fiction writer Tom Clancy and published by GP Putnam`s Sons, a member of the Penguin Group in May 2004, covers Zinni`s career from Vietnam to Kargil and Pakistan is mentioned in less than 10 pages scattered over the 450-page hard cover edition. Zinni`s account of Kargil is, however, detailed and covers pages 346 to 350. Earlier he also devotes one page to Pakistan `s position when in 1998 Nawaz Sharif was about to detonate the nuclear bomb in response to the Indian test.

According to him America intervened decisively in 1999 to end the Kargil stalemate between India and Pakistan and provided a face saving exit to Nawaz Sharif. General Pervez Musharraf, according to Zinni, ``encouraged the then PM to hear out the US withdrawal proposal``. When Kargil took place General Zinni was sent on a special mission to Pakistan by President Bill Clinton.

The Pakistan Army had at the time claimed that its troops were not involved in Kargil and it were the Kashmiri Mujahideen who were fighting but Zinni writes with full authority and knowledge that the entire operation was carried out by the Pakistan forces. More proof of this was, incidentally, provided in the Punjab Assembly on June 1, when the provincial government placed data in the house stating that 2,000 acres of special land in Punjab had been allotted to the Pakistan Army for distribution among the families of the troops killed in the Kargil war.

General Zinni writes: ``On the 21st of April, (1999) I traveled to Pakistan for several days of meetings with the new Chief of Staff General Pervez Musharraf. The two of us connected quickly and easily. He was bright, sincere, and personable. A fervent nationalist who nevertheless leaned toward the West, he was as appalled as General Karamat over the ever-worsening corruption within the civilian government.

``Nobody actually quarreled with this rationale. The problem for the Pakistani leadership was the apparent national loss of face. Backing down and pulling back to the Line of Control looked like political suicide. We needed to come up with a face-saving way out of this mess. What we were able to offer was a meeting with President Clinton, which would end the isolation that had long been the state of affairs between our two countries, but we would announce the meeting only after a withdrawal of forces. That got Musharraf`s attention and he encouraged Prime Minister Sharif to hear me out.

``Sharif was reluctant to withdraw before the meeting with Clinton was announced (again, his problem was maintaining face); but after I insisted, he finally came around and he ordered the withdrawal. We set up a meeting with Clinton in July.``

This is General Zinni`s account of Kargil and what he says is the US version of how things were perceived in Washington and how they were settled. No matter what Nawaz Sharif or General Musharraf may claim, the truth has to be sifted out from what the others have to say about the issue and Zinni has given the most authentic third-party account. Analysts and historians can now determine whether General Musharraf has written the truth or what Nawaz Sharif has been saying is right.

Re:salim_chauhan#131

[...1. How many wars did ALL hindus fight with ALL muslims in the subcontinent before 1947?
While maybe not ALL, the 3rd battle of Panipat in 1762 pitted Abdali`s Afghans, Mughals, and the Nizam against Mahrattas and Sikhs....]

Salim bhai, how come the Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and UP muslims are not included in this 1762 war on behalf of the muslims? Arent they the majority of muslims in the subcontinent? That precisely proves my point - hindus never ganged up and fought a war with indigenous muslims.

[2. How many times did hindus declare holy war on Islam?
No one really declares ``holy war`` against a faith. Hindus have at numerous times engaged in murderous violence against unarmed Muslims - Jabalpur, Ahmedabad, Ayodhya, Bombay, Gujarat (Naroda Patya), etc...]

My point is that there were no formal jihads or crusades as compared to the middle-east where such formally declared wars went on for centuries!! Occasional communal riots, while despicable, do not scale up to the level of crusades.

[3. During the past 1000 years, name me one hindu ruler who made any muslim revert back?
There was a movement in the last century to convert Meo Muslims back to Hinduism and it did succeed. There have been other attempts - especially in the east.]

Wonderful point. Once again shows the hollowness of urstruly`s thesis that hindus are chomping at the bit to ``revert`` muslims, given that this is all you could pull up from 1000 years history.

#139, Jang, {``anyhoo in this case the there prolly was no intern, just clinton, the cigars, mr sharif and a matchbox``}

Jang,
Surely you jest and speak in erroneous ways, my friend. I know for a fact that Nawaz Sharif had rented a white sherwani over white shalwar kameez for the occasion.

#137 yar salim be serious now..vajpayee is/was a brahmachari and would surely be as interested in a white-house encouter. no real physical prowess was necessary, clinton would have provided the cigars anyways...anyhoo in this case the there prolly was no intern, just clinton, the cigars, mr sharif and a matchbox.

hmmm...the discussion seems to be definitely moving forward....no longer are the discussants referring to one another as plain ``macaca``.

Now it is ``ugly macaca``. ``moron maccaca`` ``dimwit macaca``.


next step, it will be: ``like totally ugly macaca``.

Perhaps we should send the discussion the other way and talk sublimely of ``ma and caca`` (as in ``mother and child`` as illustrated in the following painting

#134 jang {``....but why should sharif run off to washington``}... {``or alternatively why did clinton not summon vajpayee and tell him to cool his guns? ``}


Elementary Jangson,
Sharif, being the perennial pervert, was well aware of the Cubans in the Oval Office and of course, the possibility of paging an intern or two while looking for Bubba`s orifice (office). He had heard that Washington, especially near the White House and the Ellipse, was the center of explosive fireworks around the Fourth of July. Thus, being the putrid Paki pervert, our man Nawaz Sharif, took the opportunity. Now, you ask ``why not Vajpayee Ji?`` Very dumb question. Seriously, do you really expect Vajpayee to catch an intern the way he walks and the speed with which he walks. Also, Mr. Vajpayee`s guns have been cool for a very long time and Clinton did not need to tell him to do that.

Re: # 112

Muthu,

I give u a closer view of Musharraf. Compare a Tibetan macaque with him.

For that view pl check this:

Jungle Macaque:

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwvir/VirusInfo/pages/tibetan1_jpg.htm

AND

for the 3-piece suit Macaque:

http://www.paktribune.com/images/newsimages/2004/09/musharraf-for-pope-meeting.jpg

:-)

Re: # 134

You are asking too many uncomfortable questions. .... the arab goo chaaters are going to
come after you .....

Remember the fate of the russioan journalist ....

*makes menacing gesture*

ok so i am still a little confused....but why should sharif run off to washington..i mean if the indians were so scared of the nukes, why did they not go to washington? after all it was summer and its real hot in dilli? or alternatively why did clinton not summon vajpayee and tell him to cool his guns?