Topic: Should Kashmir just be a seperate country? 11

U.S. Cavalry

FAQ/Rules - Search - Military Photo Gallery

  International Military Forums > Military Discussion Forums > Military Related Discussions
User Name
Password

View Poll Results :Should Kashmir be an indpendent country?
Yes 15 38.46%
No 24 61.54%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

 
July 7th, 2006   Post 101
godofthunder9010
Tribunus Laticlavius
 
 
Gear

One of the things that puzzles me is the fact that Pakistan wasn't obliterated by India in prior wars (many of which were focussed on Kashmir). Was it restraint on India's part or sheer tenacity against superior numbers on Pakistan's part??

Of course, since both nations now have nukes, an all-out war isn't possible anymore. Both have their "panic button" option of nuking each other if they get desperate. I often wonder if nukes made the India-Pakistan situation better or worse.
__________________
"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."
- General Robert E. Lee
Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!!

"It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase
 
July 11th, 2006   Post 102
zander_0633
Milforum Gnat
 
 
Gear

Welll, look at it as a investment on defence.
__________________

- Ready To Strike -
 
July 30th, 2006   Post 103
fingolfin361
Optio
 
Gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
One of the things that puzzles me is the fact that Pakistan wasn't obliterated by India in prior wars (many of which were focussed on Kashmir). Was it restraint on India's part or sheer tenacity against superior numbers on Pakistan's part??

Well, both to a certain degree i'm sure, but at the risk of sounding biased (which i probably am), i'd say it was more retraint on our part.

In 1965, things were pretty even, with us holding a slight advantage, i terms of losses and territory captured. Most importantly though, is that the Indian Army reached striking distance of Lahore, but stalled in response to a American call for a cease-fire. This is when Pakistan launched a big counter-attack. If the war hadn't stopped soon after, then we probably would have had an eventual clear-cut victory.

In 1971, things were very different, with quite a decisive victory for us. Within about a forthnight the cease-fire was declared. By that time, we controlled sizable parts of Pakistani Kashmir and Punjab. This was given back to Pakistan as a token of goodwill/measure to ensure peace.
Personally, I feel that atleast the captured Kashmiri area should not have been given back, just because Kashmir is supposed to be a part of India, and these area's had been occupied by Pakistan in 1945 before Kashmir officially became a part of India.
 
July 31st, 2006   Post 104
AussieNick
Forum Digger
 
 
Gear

It should not be an independent country.

All that will happen is you'll create a destitute, 3rd world hole that is incapable of taking care of itself, and then India and Pakistan will still be after it. At least this way, in some sense, the best interests of the region are being watched out for by 2 nations.
__________________
Platoon Commander, 4 Platoon, B Company
10/27th Battalion RSAR - RAinf

PRO PATRIA