Do you remember the story about two monkeyes fighting and a cat ?
Now india has $110 b and pak has $12 b in the bank. Hmmm.. How do you get them to spend or should i say waste their money.
Allow india to buy more weapons $1b here for AWACS, $2b for hawks etc. Ofcourse, pak will complain. Ok then let’s give them MNNA status, so that they can buy more weapons , $1 b here and $2 billion there.
It may be coincidental but since granting of MNNA, Mushy seems to be going back to square one. He started making noise about no progress untill kashmir issue solved to terrorist in kashmir are freedom fighters ( i can post link to these statements if needed).
Will we revert to past again ? It is about time we use these money to improve lives of people of SA and not give it back to the war mongors.
Re: When two monkeyes fight
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by desinum1: *
Do you remember the story about two monkeyes fighting and a cat ?
Now india has $110 b and pak has $12 b in the bank. Hmmm.. How do you get them to spend or should i say waste their money.
Allow india to buy more weapons $1b here for AWACS, $2b for hawks etc. Ofcourse, pak will complain. Ok then let's give them MNNA status, so that they can buy more weapons , $1 b here and $2 billion there.
It may be coincidental but since granting of MNNA, Mushy seems to be going back to square one. He started making noise about no progress untill kashmir issue solved to terrorist in kashmir are freedom fighters ( i can post link to these statements if needed).
Will we revert to past again ? It is about time we use these money to improve lives of people of SA and not give it back to the war mongors.:(
[/QUOTE]
You just dont understand? Why should one party show weakness against the other ohh and by the way please could i have a Academic Link to your post. " i am very curious about your posting" and by the way the Awacs programe cost India more then 1Billion.
Ohh and why do you call Musharaff a war moner? India has the largest Military Spending Budget in the world. Do you understand how military strategy works? Please stop making these posts!
Because only if there is security can they be stability and to have security you need minimal deterance.
Mushy can do what he wants. Why are you concerned? He has enough trouble on his hands..people are trying to kill him..goddamn it!
As an Indian, you should be happy that Pakistan is spending more on US military hardware. The NG, Boeing, UT labs are full of Indian scientists..they get paid by Pakistan and then send money home. It is a win win..stop complaining.
Jackal: You tell him buddy. India has the biggest military budget.. 
Re: Re: When two monkeyes fight
Here is a link to mushy’s “terrorists are freedom fighters ..”
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30153&headline=I~cannot~see~terror~in~Kashmir:~Musharraf
about " solve kashmir first.." go to dawn,daily times issues of last couple of days and you will find it. What academic links :konfused:
so ok, awacs cost india 1.1B. so what ?
When did I call Mushy a war mongor ? I could have meant Indian , Pak army or amerrikka.
India does not have the largest military budget in the world.
No i don’t know how pak military strategy works. I don’t think even pak army knows.
I thought pak already has minimal deterance, it uses green painted Nodong missiles, remember ?
Matsui,
I think i see your point of view.
I am with the cat, screw the monkey.
India has no choice but to come to the negotiating table… It mobilized million troops did hijra dance at the border for 10 months and did what it does best… start begging..
Here are its demands
- hand us 20 terrorist
- stop spanking us in IOK
Thats not all, the sleeping at wheels said he will never negotiate about Kashmir because Kahsmir is intigral part of India..LOL… Now he has agreed to discuss kashmir I bet a little spanking from Chinese and he will say alright lets discuss Delhi that is also disputed.
Pakis has done great job, here is a lill from Indian sources! 
India Wrestles with Nuclear Arms Paradox
Mon January 13, 2003 05:20 AM ET
By Sanjeev Miglani
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Nearly five years after India and Pakistan
became nuclear powers, New Delhi is finally coming to terms with what
that status means – ** the threat of a Pakistani first strike has
neutralized its conventional superiority. **
Analysts say last year’s inconclusive military standoff between the
neighbors highlighted what many had feared when the two conducted
tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998, that India would no longer dare go
to war with Pakistan.
“India has become a victim of nuclear blackmail,” said C. Raja Mohan,
strategic affairs editor at The Hindu newspaper.
So, unable to go back, India is copying the example of the United
States and the former Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War,
building its nuclear deterrent to the point of mutually assured
destruction so that neither side would dare go nuclear.
P.S: For Indian terrorism in Kashmir please go to Human Rights Web site… thank you…
Good point. Rather than complaining, our government should be happy that Pakistan is being granted a non-nato ally status. This means they will be able to spend more money on weapons, which in turn means more money for the Indians!!.
It is about time our government followed ‘INDIA FIRST’ policy!!.
I say everybody shout - ‘Matsui for Priminister’ and ‘INDIA FIRST’ !! :bhangra: :bhangra:
Re: Re: Re: When two monkeyes fight
OK Firstly, I am offended at the way “Indian’s” make pakistan out to be the Harbourer of Terrorists and how we are the evil cruel slave drivers in South East Asia.
And now refereing to Military Expenduture and War Mogers well here are some real and academic sources for stats: Nationmaster.com (CIA)
Army Personnel:
Pakistan Army:
Personnel: 612,000 (6th Largest)
Indian Army
Personnel: 1,303,000 (4th Largest Army in the World)
Convential Arms Imports:
Pakistan:$759 million (5th Highest in the World)
India:$1,064 million (3rd Highest in the World)
Military Expendeture:
Pakistan: $2.964 billion (31st in the World)
India: $11.52 billion (11th in the World)
And if you think we are War Mongers how do you explain this?
In the present budget presented to parliament for the financial year 2001-2002 defence has been allocated Rs 620,000.00 million. This amount shows an increase of Rs 75,000 million over last year’s revised estimates of Rs 544,610 million, or an increase of about 14 percent in defence spending this year. Last year India increased its defence budget by a whopping 28.2 percent or Rs 130,000.00 million. (by $ 3 billion to a total defence spending of $ 13.5 billion) Three years earlier in 1997 India’s defence budget was increased by 24.4 percent and in 1994 by 20 percent. In between these major escalations there have been yearly increases ranging from 10 to 12 percent.
These large-scale increases in India’s defence spending are certainly well beyond her legitimate defence and security requirements and consequently a source of great concern for her small neighbours particularly Pakistan which is now the only truly independent country on the periphery of India. This increase in India’s defence spending has also surprised the foreign donors particularly those from the west who are helping India to cope with the financial and other losses after the disastrous earthquake in the province of Gujarat. It amounts to India diverting her own financial resources for unnecessarily expanding her Armed Forces and leaving the rehabilitation of the poor people of Gujarat to foreign sympathy donors.
Pakistan’s Foreign Office voiced the governments deep concern and said India had launched itself on a massive programme of expansion of its conventional military capabilities without regard to regional stability. It strongly felt that the increase would upset the military balance in South Asia. The Foreign Office spokesman went on to say that “the massive acquisition of armaments by India is a cause for concern for Pakistan because the bulk of India’s army is deployed on the Pakistani border. Therefore, we cannot but be deeply concerned.” He also referred to India’s huge 28.2 percent defence spending hike last year and the recent multi-billion dollar arms purchase from Russia.
In Pakistan on the other hand defence expenditure has not been increased for many years now. In 1994 when India raised its defence expenditure by 20 percent, the Prime Minister of Pakistan had remarked at the time that even in view of India’s 20 percent increase in its defence budget, Pakistan cannot watch it, because if it did it would not be able to meet the 5.4 percent budget deficit target agreed with the IMF by the Moeen Qureshi government. The same principle guided the Pakistan government thinking in 1997 when India raised her defence spending by 24.4 percent, from Rs 364.9 billion in 1996 to Rs 454.2 billion in 1997. Last year while India raised her defence spending by 28.2 percent, Pakistan did not react but in fact reduced her defence spending by 8 percent. The amount thus saved was diverted to the government’s poverty alleviation programme.
You see!!!
Well perhaps you would say it is to protect india from the threat posed by China?
Well then how can you explain or even justify this qoute?
clause in the present Indo-Russian contracts stipulates that the same items would not be sold to Pakistan. I reminded the ambassador that during the 1965 Indo-Pak war we outgunned the Indian artillery by only one regiment of 12 guns. After the war India purchased 400,130 mm long range guns from the USSR. But the USSR sold a 100 of the same guns to Pakistan as well. Thus keeping a ratio of 4 to 1 between the two armies. A four to one superiority by India is acceptable and can be handled by Pakistan. A balance was, therefore, maintained.
??? Talk about unfair advantage!!!
Please dont disrespect our national armed forces, And for tour information here is our Military Strategy:
Pakistan’s Defence Strategy:
Pakistan due to its numerical inferiority compared to India has a strategic policy of OffensiveDefence so says an analyst at All-refer.com.
Pakistan since its unique creation has been enveloped in a state of siege, psychologically and physically. Our geopolitical location and history of wars, upheavals, and turmoil have placed a heavy premium on the national security. From the beginning of human history application of force or threat of force has always been persistently used to the resolution of social and political problems. This phenomenon to date seems to remain valid - more so in the context of our strategic environment. Since our birth, as an independent and sovereign nation, our energies were absorbed in coping with a cycle of recurrent crises, whose fundamental origin lay in the aggressive attitudes and actions of our dominant neighbour-India. Pakistan with all its internal and external problems desperately needs durable peace at all cost to save the loss of its sovereignty, dignity and honour.
India is secure in its own strength and Indian leadership is fully conscious of it. They know that Pakistan is too weak to undertake any meaningful military offensive against her. India is in a formidably strong position materially, economically and diplomatically. This is a reality, which must not be lost sight of. Therefore, if we lower our defences below a certain threshold we could be facing the spectre of extinction.
There can be no peace without strength. As long as there are those who threaten our vital interests we need to remain strong. Our weakness shall tempt our would-be aggressors to threaten, coerce and aggress. We must continue to place high priority on enhancing our security in relation to the strength of the potential and actual adversaries. We should neither be intimidated by the overwhelming power of the adversary nor over estimate his strength. We must develop a strategy to deal with our security concerns to counter the threat at an acceptable risk and minimal cost.
Due to India’s superiority and our lack of strategic depth, Pakistan cannot expect to absorb an initial attack and to successfully fight a protracted defensive war. Thus, in terms of conventional strategy, Pakistan has emphasized a doctrine of “offensive defence,” which provides for quick pre-emptive strikes once a war begins in order to disrupt an enemy advance and inflict high costs. In addition, such actions are designed to gain salients in enemy territory, which can be used as trade-offs in peace negotiations. Navy and air force roles would be mainly defensive.
Cont-
The salient features of the evolved strategy are:-
a. Pakistan shall not resort to first use of any strategic nuclear weapons.
b. If nuclear deterrent fails and the aggressor seizes the initiative to launch the First Strike, we shall hit back with our Second Strike ability.
c. In case the deterrent fails by the enemy launching a meaningful conventional offensive, our forces shall resiliently defend their homeland.
d. Any time in our perception when the defences are seriously endangered and a collapse is imminent, we shall be obliged to raise the scope and nature of our response. We shall now employ tactical nuclear weapons against the invading military forces.
e. This is essentially a defensive strategy backed up by a series of controlled escalations.
f. Our response shall be directly proportionate to the actions of enemy provocation and threat posed to our security.
It has a manifest ability to react to any threat at the appropriate level. It initially relies on the assumption (emanating by our abiding desire for peace) that the strategy of nuclear deterrent shall work. It is based on full recognition of the prevailing environment that we shall never have the resources to indefinitely increase and update our conventional forces to create a reasonable balance with the ever-increasing Indian capabilities.
This conceptual doctrine reinforces our objective not only to prevent the use of nuclear weapons by an aggressor but shall certainly impose a certain measure of caution on him. This shall also demonstrate our national will to preserve the peace and our desire to settle all issues through negotiations with more confidence. The doctrine aims to present the enemy with an unacceptable degree of risk and injury in proportion to his potential gains. For such a policy to succeed it is important that potential aggressor is made aware that such a policy exits. Finally, he must know that the doctrine is matched by the political will and available means to execute it.
Furthermore the large-scale exercise Zarb-e-Momin (Sword of the Faithful), which took place in 1989, was held far enough away from the border not to frighten India, and, indeed, foreign observers were invited. Its scenario and the publicity that attended it were, however, meant to illustrate the offensivedefense doctrine and to make sure that India understood it.
Sources:
http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/mar/doctrine.htm
*Please note published articles are between 8 and 4 years old respectively.
OK please note this:
Much of China’s continued assistance to Pakistan takes the form of dual-use missile technologies useful for Pakistan’s indigenous missile programs. [Nti-.org] “The Key Word there being Indigenous”..!
And by the way i dont know if you have been to UNiversity or not but an academic link or source is a source of information that holds a non-bias view of an obesrvation such as Jane’s Inteligence and Defence Journals and other “Academic”- “Research based” sources… Online Newspapers dont count on such delicate topics… OK!!
SO who’s the War Monger?
And as for Kashmir, Well according to a New Report INDIA is as much to balme as Pakistan. Please read:
http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermail/cyberclub-old/1999-July/000630.html
…
As for the AWACS it cost India $1.0B for the integrated system not the whole package, just what i was wishing to check!
So you see india is as much to balme for all of this, and with a neighbour who’s army is three times our size no wonder Pakistan adopts a high profile military strategy. However according to reports Pakistans budget has decresed while india’s has increased!
Think about that!! OK!!
Her eis the benfit of not engaging in fighting.
India's GDP growth continued at good rate
FII flows increased
Outsourcing became a business strategy with India as the leader
Pakistan dropped the plebecite stupidity
BRC became BRIC
Third party mediation was junked
CBM took precedent over Kashmir
Cricket first, then Kashmir chanda :)
When someone has a divergent opinion in India it is good for the country. SOmething you won't understand considering having a divergent opinion can have you hanging in a chaurah in Pindi. :)
[QUOTE]
When someone has a divergent opinion in India it is good for the country. SOmething you won't understand considering having a divergent opinion can have you hanging in a chaurah in Pindi.
[/QUOTE]
When has anyone hung from a "chaurah" in Pindi EVER for a divergent opinion? What is a chaurah? Are you trying to say "Chauraha"? At least check the facts before you spew them out and no...I am not your daddy so don't start with that again ;)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mufakkar: *
When has anyone hung from a "chaurah" in Pindi EVER for a divergent opinion? What is a chaurah? Are you trying to say "Chauraha"? At least check the facts before you spew them out and no...I am not your daddy so don't start with that again ;)
[/QUOTE]
Haha, Lol..
And what are you trying to say in regards to Pindi. Please make some sense in your next post matsui, Remember this is about military issus, politics is in topic 1.. OK!!