The General and Kargil

The same person who touts ``national interest`` in enslaving the nation to US whims upon threat, proudly displays his ``achievements`` in recklessly, aimlessly, and uselessly bringing the subcontinent on the brink of nuclear catastrophie. I wonder what would cause greater destruction in Pakistan, US bombing or an India/Pakistan nuclear exchange. The hypocrisy and BS of bey ghairats like Musharraf knows no bounds, possibly the most bey ghairat of all military dictators in Pakistan`s history so far. I am also amazed at how ignorantly people are jumping on his ``Kargil`` bandwagon. The guy is a reckless damn fool who will sacrifice countless for his own ego, on the one hand he puts up fake showmanship in why he surrendered Pakistan to the Americans, on the other hand he invites nuclear destruction on his land and is proud of it. Come on people, be reasonable.

#67 by harimau on October 9, 2006 4:28pm PT


India is using laser excitation


Is laser excitation in the koran? No? then the inbred retard probably doesn`t know laser excitation from a laser pointer...

Ref FARAZ-AHMED #30

[Foy yr guidance the N.Korean nuke prog is plutonium based while Pakistan`s is uranium based...no Pakistan will not get blamed...except for passing this technolgy by mistake to India thru dubai based Indians who were part of the AQ Khan network...]

India`s bombs use plutonium; Pakistan`s uses uranium. Any talk of AQ Khan selling his technology to India is nothing but fertilizer spread by Pakistanis.

While you Pakis built centrifuges to separate uranium, India is using laser excitation for the same purpose.

You guys are using 1940s technology updated to 1960s. We are using 1990s technology.

Re:salim_chauhan#61

[...If this was such a major defeat for the Pakis, why are Injuns to emotionally upset, even much more than the Pakis who ostensibly lost this war, at the mere mention of Kargil? ...]

Salim bhai, Indians are not upset by the Kargil conflict per se. We are upset primarily because we were stabbed in the back. At that time, Vajpayee had broken the ice with Nawaz Sharif and there were great expectations of a reconciliation with Pak. All of a sudden, without any provocation, Pakistan launched this futile invasion.

As you know, it hurts a lot more when someone stabs you in the back as compared to a straight forward fight. The deception and the betrayal caused more fury than the actual attack. As a result, even to this day, there is little trust with Pakistan and we dont see compromises on even minor issues. That is the sad legacy of Kargil, along with the needless death and injuries to so many people.

Ama Salim,

Don`t buy the Pakistani General`s lines - i.e., lies!

(1) You know he and his group are a bunch of liars with only one objective - to promote their own well-being - they don`t believe in any of the crap that they sell to their gullibles! The officers by and large are not fundamentalists, just power hungry and have no ``national`` interests or honors to consider if their own self-interests are threatened - they don`t know any other way. By now, it ought to be obvious.

(2) Kargil was the stupidest thing the Pakistani Khakis ever did - in my opinion, based on what was the inevitable result of their own decades-long braggadacio - they started believing in all the stereotypes of Indians they had been creating over time in their own minds. The reality was different and woke them up in a jiffy.

(3) Kargil was an utterly cowardly thing to do. Not acknowledging your own dead soldiers is the worst damage you can do to inflict on the psyche of the average soldier and the average citizen! It forever set an image of cowardice from which the Pakistani khakis will not recover for the next 20 years or more - because nobody in the presently alive generations is EVER going to forget it.

(4) Kargil was a highly dangerous thing to do - because once you start a war, ANYTHING can happen - including (the less likely but possible) use of nukes. Guess which of the two countries would be damaged seriously and which would be total history by this time?!!

There is absolutely no honest way to balance that level of super idiocy with any of the ``intelligence`` failure on the part of the Indians who were duped by the ``peace`` initiative then taking place!

Re: # 61 by Salim_Chauhan:

Salim:

``If this was such a major defeat for the Pakis, why are Injuns to emotionally upset, even much more than the Pakis who ostensibly lost this war, at the mere mention of Kargil? ``

Apart from winning and losing, could it just be that the Indians are upset because Indian (and pehaps Pakistani) soldiers DIED? Is it possible for people to get emotionally upset when they see death? How do you measure emotions? How do you know that Pakistanis are not, or less, emotionally hurt?

Guys people died in Kargil. And here we turn Kargil into a football to be kicked around by Indian and Pakistani keyboard generals.

Taking a cue from Asadi: `Elites` played their games and people died. Here we are again dancing to their tunes. I also agree with Arjun: Now that the general has said that the Pakistani army was involved, the Pakistani people should demand that the general get back the bodies of dead Pakistani soldiers.

Salim #61
I can answer for myself. At appeared in March 1999 that for once, there will be a solution to Kashmir. Vajpayee had mandate in India, and Nawaz Shareef had in Pakistan. Both counteries appeared to be in right frame of mind.

Kargil destroyed all that... I was in Jammu during that period, and can tell you much would have happened had someone not restrained India (who was that invisible ``someone``, was that Vajpayee or was that US government, is another question)

#61 by Salim_Chauhan on October 9, 2006 1:52pm PT

You mistake lauging out ass off at paki delusions with being upset..

Krishna_abcd #56 {`` In response to my #48,

[...I must stress that if this was such a major defeat for the Pakis, why are Injuns so upset at the mere mention of Kargil? ] ``}

Krishan responded:

{``Because if a dirty two-bit lowlife of a thief sneaks into your house in the middle of the night, and is subsequently kicked into jail by the police, the homeowner is still upset at the thief for intruding into his house. ``}

So,
I must rephrase my question:

If this was such a major defeat for the Pakis, why are Injuns to emotionally upset, even much more than the Pakis who ostensibly lost this war, at the mere mention of Kargil?

Re: # 59

Pl read as (first para):

Kargil was an operation that was disowned by them then, but owned by Musharraf with an added comment that Kashmir was internationalised. Nope. Kashmir was internationalised when the issue went to the UN.

Ms. Pande,

Kargil was an operation that was disowned by them then, but owned by Musharraf with an added comment that it Kashmir was internationalised. Nope. Kashmir was internationalised when the issue went to the UN.

Recently Mush used taxpayers’ money to promote his book (to make more money for himself, in the process; a clear case of self-aggrandisement).

Win or loss is a matter of interpretation. India lost some soldiers, Pak too lost their own plus some freelancers from their side. Perhaps, Pak wanted to repay India in the same coin for Siachin, but failed.

Musharraf forced the hand of Nawaz when Nawaz wa in power but when Mush himself was pushed into the chair of running Pakistan, he too mellowed a bit and learnt his lessons in diplomacy and international relations in the hard way i.e. making mistakes.

For them solution means getting the Valley, at least. From India`s point of view, how can we accept the propriety of Musharraf`s regime that was not representative, b4 we think abt the solution?

If we look back, it`s Pak’s obsession with their world-view that Muslim majority state shud not go to India. OTOH, conceding Kashmir is a fundamental cognition of TNT for us. This third-option of independence is of recent origin. In any case India`s had to make some choices but in a democratic setup things cant go the way we like it. For eg. Oslo Agreement of 1993 went down the drain when Netanyahu came to power, who nullified Yitzak Rabin’s peace accord.

When British India faced this conflict of Pakistan and Hindustan, Jinnah suggested that there ought to be exchange of population. What abt the same logic now?

#57

Let us also not be delusional, though the international environment has changed in India`s favor since `90 its not all hunky-dory.

There remains strong support for the Pakistani military & intelligence services in the CIA and US national security establishment. The entire generation that is at the top of the CIA ``made their bones`` in Afghanistan fighting along the ISI. See people like Bob Baer, Uncle Milty (Milt Bearden), Scowcroft etc. Whatever their views on the current problems in Pakistan/Afghanistan they still believe strongly in working with the Pakistani Army/ISI (I dont believe in any of the ``rouge ISI`` bullshit).

Britain remains the country most vulnerable to radical Islam. For all their outward westernization Brit-Paki`s have been deeply indoctrinated in the ``Kashmir-jihad-hate-India`` routine. All this while Brit-Indian`s remain disinterested in politics, if not actually supportive of islamic radicalism due to their attraction to leftist politics (like ``human-rights`` litigation, which seems like a boom industry in the UK).

As some CIA guy said ``Indian`s are too self-righteous, they believe that they should be helped just because they exist``. Nobody has ever won anything by moral self righteousness, its only power (economic, cultural, military...) that speaks.

#47 by bongdongs on October 9, 2006 11:21am PT


Internationalization is ok when the pre-dominant international order is actually in your favor...The current pre-dominant international order treats Pakiland like it`s pet female-of-the-canine species at best and as a prophylactic at worst..

Pakis can delude themselves all they want..fact is, the US exerted tremendous pressure on Pakiland to not test their nukes and yet Pakiland did so...So if there really was any pressure on Pkailand from the US during Kargil, it would have easily resisted if it really was winning..after all, they really really want kashmir to banega Pakiland...

#44 by Salim_Chauhan

[...I must stress that if this was such a major defeat for the Pakis, why are Injuns so upset at the mere mention of Kargil? ]

Because if a dirty two-bit lowlife of a thief sneaks into your house in the middle of the night, and is subsequently kicked into jail by the police, the homeowner is still upset at the thief for intruding into his house.

Get it?

No?

Well that figures....

Re: # 6

Zee Baba,

I cant believe my eyes seeing ur post, a very objective post after a long time. Thanks.

#50 by Urstruly on October 9, 2006 11:57am PT

case, Paksitan would have started
Kashmiri militants would



In my opinion, Pak Army should have deployed soldiers


Coulda would shoulda...

The key question is, if you really care about Indian Kashmir being part of Pakistan, WHY DIDNTCHA?