[AbvAvgUser]

This is just to know the opinion of the people at large about the ever going tangle between India and Pakistan.

Whom do you support and why?

Do you believe Pakistan is engaged in promotion and export of terrorism to India and also other countries? Do you believe Osama Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in Pakistan?

What could be the solution to the Kashmir Problem?

Please voice your opinions and cast your vote at the poll.

[pyritechips]

I don't know enough about the politics of the conflict to comment fully, therefore I cannot fairly support either side.

But one thing I can say is that I find both countries guilty of arming themselves with a stockpile of nuclear weapons to aim at each other. I find it hard to accept the large amounts of money the two countries spend on nuclear weapons and the military while so many millions of the people live in poverty. It makes no sense to me.

[Gibble]

it's the cold war of the middle east...only with alot more killing

[GoneForNow]

Actually, since both countries flexed their nuclear prowess (for the benefit of each other) their relationship (while not friendly by any means) has taken on a more civil tone. The knowledge that your enemy has the ability to reduce you to smoking rubble as well as you to them is, from a governmental standpoint, a sobering reality. In simplest terms, play nice and find diplomatic solutions.
The US and USSR cold war proved that when there is a lack of balance is when things get hairy. As long as the world can get both India and Pakistan not to continue to test and improve their weapons delivery systems, IMO, the area will stabilize and both countries will reach solutions to their problems they both can live with.
Otherwise the east coast of the US runs the risk of nuclear fallout and that would really piss me off.

[AbvAvgUser]

I agree entirely that both countries need to concentrate more on development than weapons. But is there no substance in the information that Pakistan continuously support and train terrorists? Is that what world can tolerate at this juncture?

Out of the two, which is the more mature and responsible government? I think I will surely say India. There are some rogue elements even in India, but not even one fourth of what there are in Pakistan.

[angelize56]

I can't agree this was called for and I wouldn't be surpirsed if someone on board sues over the fear at their expense. Take care. angel

India Mock Hijacking Creates Panic
Aviation Official Defends Exercise

POSTED: 9:41 a.m. EDT September 20, 2003

NEW DELHI, India -- A mock hijacking must have looked a little too real to passengers at an airport in New Delhi, India.

The drill created panic and triggered televised news flashes that terrorists had taken over a jetliner.

Passengers and crew were taken off an Alliance Air flight after it landed at Indira Gandhi International Airport while armed commandoes surrounded the plane. Television reports say police and paramilitary troops took up positions along the tarmac, while fire trucks, ambulances and rescue teams stood in readiness.

A top official with the aviation ministry defended the secrecy of the exercise saying "there would have been no point if we had informed everyone about the drill."

[Wino]

When I saw the movie 'Ghandi', I was rooting for the British!

[AbvAvgUser]

Wino, its not "Ghandi", its "Gandhi" - "Mahatma Gandhi".

Anyway, what do you guys say on the reports in today's news that Dawood Ebrahim is in Pakistan?

He is the prime suspect in the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai in March 1993 in which hundreds were killed and thousands were injurred. He is to India what Osama Bin Laden is to US.

It is suspected that he is working with the help of ISI, the Pakistani (so called) Intelligence services. He is wanted in India for loads and loads of criminal activities. Every request from India to Pakistan for his extradition has been turned down with the same answer that he is not in Pakistan. Now one of the Pakistani polotician himself confirms that he is in Pakistan.

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by AbvAvgUser:
I agree entirely that both countries need to concentrate more on development than weapons. But is there no substance in the information that Pakistan continuously support and train terrorists? Is that what world can tolerate at this juncture?

Out of the two, which is the more mature and responsible government? I think I will surely say India. There are some rogue elements even in India, but not even one fourth of what there are in Pakistan.

Hmmm. I chose party India & partly Pakistan. I am aware of the Islamic fundamentalist movement in Pakistan and I can relate to the problems in India. But I see both sides struggling over a piece of land that really should belong to neither. I'd like your opinion on the possibility of an independent Democratic Kashmir.

Since you are in India, I can understand your point of view. Of course you support the side of India. But your point about Pakistani terrorist activities is very valid. I'm always curious about how the US can so easily assume allied status in the war on terror with a known terrorist state :cunfused:

I think Pakistan has a chance as long as Musharaff doesn't get assasinated anytime soon. I'd like to see him lead some real change in Pakistan.

[AbvAvgUser]

Well I am surprised that you are hopeful about what Musharraf can do. He is the one who masterminded the Kargil intrusion while Indian PM Vajpayee and Pak PM Nawaz Sharif were talking about friendship. Some tapes were published about Musharraf conversing with his deputy and their authenticity certified by CIA itself. Some reports even say that CIA itself handed over the tapes to India.

But it shows how pathetic is the state in Pakistan, that someone as rogue as Musharraf is seen as the best alternative Pakistan has for ruling it!!

While on Kashmir, I must say that when India was partitioned and made independent, Kashmir was an independent state. The king of Kashmir was attacked by Pakistan and he called for help from India and signed on a document for merging Kashmir with India. India claims right over Kashmir on the basis of that document. But I am not too good in history, so I may be wrong.

And the condition of people in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) is seen to be believed. They live in a pathetic state. There is no law and order. There are hundreds of terrorist training camps in operation there.

In a way, taking Pakistan along in the so called war against terrorism is alright. But I will some day post a comparison table between Musharraf and Saddam. Lets see who is more rogue and who should be thrown out.

[Wino]

Wino, its not "Ghandi", its "Gandhi" - "Mahatma Gandhi".

AbvAvgUser - at least give me credit for getting all the letters in there, albeit in the wrong order. Hope you know my statement was tongue in cheek. If not, sincere apologies for my crude remark.

Musharraf/Pakistan is the USA's favorite terrorist at the moment, much like Saddam was during his war with Iran. We needed him for our war in Afghanistan. He and his country were/are being richly rewarded for their cooperation (I won't say bribed, so as not to antagonize our right wing friends here), as will India, Turkey etal should they decide to send troops to Iraq. Once he is no longer needed, much like a used prophylactic, he will be thrown aside. In the interim, we need him to help fight the war on terrorism - should he be ousted, or assinated now, chaos would follow and finding Osama and Taliban leaders would be difficult to say the least. His leadership is tenuous or he would allow the US to send in troops or bomb the areas of Pakistan where we believe Osama to be hiding.

[AbvAvgUser]

Musharraf/Pakistan is the USA's favorite terrorist at the moment, much like Saddam was during his war with Iran. We needed him for our war in Afghanistan. He and his country were/are being richly rewarded for their cooperation (I won't say bribed, so as not to antagonize our right wing friends here), as will India, Turkey etal should they decide to send troops to Iraq. Once he is no longer needed, much like a used prophylactic, he will be thrown aside. In the interim, we need him to help fight the war on terrorism - should he be ousted, or assinated now, chaos would follow and finding Osama and Taliban leaders would be difficult to say the least. His leadership is tenuous or he would allow the US to send in troops or bomb the areas of Pakistan where we believe Osama to be hiding.

I agree with you somewhat. So in a way, US is using Pakistan. So indirectly, they find them guilty but is just pampering them so that it doesn't become an opposition. Hmmm.

[Wino]

Originally posted by AbvAvgUser:
.... So in a way, US is using Pakistan. So indirectly, they find them guilty but is just pampering them so that it doesn't become an opposition. Hmmm.

Yep! kinda sorta about like that!!

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by AbvAvgUser:
Well I am surprised that you are hopeful about what Musharraf can do. He is the one who masterminded the Kargil intrusion while Indian PM Vajpayee and Pak PM Nawaz Sharif were talking about friendship. Some tapes were published about Musharraf conversing with his deputy and their authenticity certified by CIA itself. Some reports even say that CIA itself handed over the tapes to India.

I must plead quite a bit of ignorance about the whole situation over there. You asked for opinions. You didn't say they had to ne informed opinions
But about Musharraf; The only opinion I can have is how he dealt with the US Administration when the US invaded Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban there. Although many Taliban crossed the border into Pakistan, I had heard that Musharraf was cracking down on the Islamic Fundamentalist movement there (with not much success, I might add). I am aware that Musharraf lead the charge to arm the country to defend against a possible Indian invasion, but I don't know how likely that really is or was. Do you?

But it shows how pathetic is the state in Pakistan, that someone as rogue as Musharraf is seen as the best alternative Pakistan has for ruling it!!

While on Kashmir, I must say that when India was partitioned and made independent, Kashmir was an independent state. The king of Kashmir was attacked by Pakistan and he called for help from India and signed on a document for merging Kashmir with India. India claims right over Kashmir on the basis of that document. But I am not too good in history, so I may be wrong.

I appreciate it when someone says they may not have all of the facts. So you just won a ton of respect from me.
Do you think there's a chance that Kashmir can become independent country again? So, it used to be a Monarchy. Do you think there's any hope of an independent democratic movement in Kashmir?

And the condition of people in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) is seen to be believed. They live in a pathetic state. There is no law and order. There are hundreds of terrorist training camps in operation there.

In a way, taking Pakistan along in the so called war against terrorism is alright. But I will some day post a comparison table between Musharraf and Saddam. Lets see who is more rogue and who should be thrown out.

I'd like to see the chart.
Are you willing to also be critical of the way India is handling Kasmir? (not that I am, I am just curious)

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by AbvAvgUser:
I agree with you somewhat. So in a way, US is using Pakistan. So indirectly, they find them guilty but is just pampering them so that it doesn't become an opposition. Hmmm.

I can agree with you there, somewhat.
It would have been hard for the US to "settle" Pakistan after the assistance they gave us in Pakistan.

I can see Stoner in 5 years pasting a picture of Colin Powell shaking Musharraf's hand.