Is this the start of World War III?
- Thread starter bobcathy1
- Start date
Fine, dGAB, you don't think there will be a military confrontation. I do.
If throwing out numbers makes you feel better, go right ahead. And if you recall, I stated that losing Seoul appeared to be almost a given...Of course, numbers were being thrown out prior to invading Iraq about the thousands and thousands of casualties we were going to take prior to arriving at Baghdad, not to mention the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.
I specifically stated "I take no joy in that" because I knew dullards like you would make some asinine comment insinuating that I wanted war. And guess what? You didn't disappoint!
It was supposed to be a preemptive strike against your ignorance, but the payload apparently wasn't enough to penetrate the hazy fog that constitutes your "logical" thought process.
You are so insipid Hapaboy.
My point, which sailed over your unimaginative head, was that the stakes are too high on the peninsula and everyone (even Dubya, but not you) knows that.
"Losing Seoul is a given"! Its no wonder the United States has a bad international reputation when people like you can talk. "Won't be a walk in the park"! Go back to your sandbox and your GI Joe dolls, we're talking real world matters here.
My point, which sailed over your unimaginative head, was that the stakes are too high on the peninsula and everyone (even Dubya, but not you) knows that.
"Losing Seoul is a given"! Its no wonder the United States has a bad international reputation when people like you can talk. "Won't be a walk in the park"! Go back to your sandbox and your GI Joe dolls, we're talking real world matters here.
Fool.
I said "appeared to be almost a given." You continue to quote me out of context. Undoubtedly our military planners have a far greater grasp on the entire situation than you or I do. Will you at least admit that?
"Stakes are too high on the peninsula"? Yeah, just like the stakes were too high in the desert.
"Real world"? Since when did you take up occupancy there?
I'll go back to my sandbox if you get a hobby beyond making a pathetic ass out of yourself every time you open your mouth.
It is worth noting that while we are embroiled in a war.
Castro is arresting people in Cuba for speaking out again. We are getting a LOT of "commuters" in the Keys. Guess we are too busy with the war to care?
North Korea just decided to launch some nuclear testing and told us to bugger off....guess they are still pissed about the Korean War?
Food for thought
Castro is arresting people in Cuba for speaking out again. We are getting a LOT of "commuters" in the Keys. Guess we are too busy with the war to care?
North Korea just decided to launch some nuclear testing and told us to bugger off....guess they are still pissed about the Korean War?
Food for thought
Pak Says India Suitable For Pre-Emptive Attack
4-7-03
ISLAMABAD (IANS) -- Pakistan Monday raised the temperature in its rhetorical war with India, saying the latter was "the suitable case for a pre-emptive attack" for violating U.N. resolutions and possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Talking to journalists, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said it was India that had violated the U.N. Security Council resolutions and not Pakistan and the international community should take measures to force India to implement the resolutions.
"India has amassed weapons of mass destruction and is responsible for massacre of innocent civilians in Ahmedabad and Kashmir," said the minister in response to Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha's comment, in reference to the U.S. strike in Iraq, that Pakistan was a "fit case" for pre-emptive action.
"It is India which is a fit case for pre-emptive strikes. There is ample proof that India possesses biological, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction," Ahmed told newsmen after delivering an inaugural address at a seminar on "New World Information Order - Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan."
Moreover, the minister said, "India could use these weapons of mass destruction and deadly chemical agents against its neighbours, hence it's a threat to international peace...this is a serious cause of pre-emptive attack against India."
He said that Pakistan reserved its right of pre-emptive strike "as India possesses weapons of mass destruction as described by the international community."
He, however, said that Pakistan being a peace-loving nation wanted to settle all the disputes, including the "core issue of Jammu and Kashmir", with India through talks process "but it should not be taken as any weakness of the country."
The minister said that India was trying to take undue advantage of Pakistan's stance to resolve outstanding disputes through dialogue peacefully. "But New Delhi should know that Pakistan has the right to ensure its defence," said the minister.
Referring to India's missile programme, he said Pakistan was not afraid of it as Islamabad's missile technology was more advanced and sophisticated than that of New Delhi's.
He said Pakistan was capable of defending itself because of the unity of the nation and preparedness of its armed forces. In such a situation if India committed aggression, he warned, it would have to repent and would get a befitting reply.
Foreign Office spokesman Aziz Ahmed Khan said that Indian leaders were forgetting that it was not Pakistan but India that had defaulted on U.N. resolutions and was responsible for proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region.
He said that international community should come forward to prevent India from violating human rights abuses in Kashmir. He said that not only the international human rights organizations but India's own human rights bodies had reported the "brutal killings by the Indian forces in Kashmir."
4-7-03
ISLAMABAD (IANS) -- Pakistan Monday raised the temperature in its rhetorical war with India, saying the latter was "the suitable case for a pre-emptive attack" for violating U.N. resolutions and possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Talking to journalists, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said it was India that had violated the U.N. Security Council resolutions and not Pakistan and the international community should take measures to force India to implement the resolutions.
"India has amassed weapons of mass destruction and is responsible for massacre of innocent civilians in Ahmedabad and Kashmir," said the minister in response to Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha's comment, in reference to the U.S. strike in Iraq, that Pakistan was a "fit case" for pre-emptive action.
"It is India which is a fit case for pre-emptive strikes. There is ample proof that India possesses biological, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction," Ahmed told newsmen after delivering an inaugural address at a seminar on "New World Information Order - Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan."
Moreover, the minister said, "India could use these weapons of mass destruction and deadly chemical agents against its neighbours, hence it's a threat to international peace...this is a serious cause of pre-emptive attack against India."
He said that Pakistan reserved its right of pre-emptive strike "as India possesses weapons of mass destruction as described by the international community."
He, however, said that Pakistan being a peace-loving nation wanted to settle all the disputes, including the "core issue of Jammu and Kashmir", with India through talks process "but it should not be taken as any weakness of the country."
The minister said that India was trying to take undue advantage of Pakistan's stance to resolve outstanding disputes through dialogue peacefully. "But New Delhi should know that Pakistan has the right to ensure its defence," said the minister.
Referring to India's missile programme, he said Pakistan was not afraid of it as Islamabad's missile technology was more advanced and sophisticated than that of New Delhi's.
He said Pakistan was capable of defending itself because of the unity of the nation and preparedness of its armed forces. In such a situation if India committed aggression, he warned, it would have to repent and would get a befitting reply.
Foreign Office spokesman Aziz Ahmed Khan said that Indian leaders were forgetting that it was not Pakistan but India that had defaulted on U.N. resolutions and was responsible for proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region.
He said that international community should come forward to prevent India from violating human rights abuses in Kashmir. He said that not only the international human rights organizations but India's own human rights bodies had reported the "brutal killings by the Indian forces in Kashmir."
umm, Magna wars have always been 'pre-emptive'. Look at history. It is very rare for a war to break out because two opposing forces decided at the same time that they would go to war. Almost always it was one side deciding to take the other out....and forcing the other side into the war only because of self preservation.
But I do know what you mean. This (above) is simply rhetoric which is extremely common between Pakistan and India. These guys are like a family in a blood feud. Tempers are always running hot, and accusations are always being levelled. Nothing new here.
But I do know what you mean. This (above) is simply rhetoric which is extremely common between Pakistan and India. These guys are like a family in a blood feud. Tempers are always running hot, and accusations are always being levelled. Nothing new here.
1. India-Pakistan Wars -> The 1947-48 War The first war arose over Kashmir, in NW India, in 1947 when Muslim subjects revolted and were supported by Pakistani troops. The Hindu ruler appealed to India for aid, agreeing to cede the state to India in return. India moved quickly to consolidate its position in Kashmir, pushing Pakistan's volunteers back. Conflicts...
2. India-Pakistan Wars -> The 1965 War The second war began in Apr., 1965, when fighting broke out in the Rann of Kachchh, a sparsely inhabited region along the West Pakistan-India border. In August fighting spread to Kashmir and to the Punjab, and in September Pakistani and Indian troops crossed the partition line between the two countries and launched air...
3. India-Pakistan Wars -> The 1971 War Indo-Pakistani relations deteriorated when civil war erupted in Pakistan, pitting the West Pakistan army against East Pakistanis demanding greater autonomy. The fighting forced 10 million East Pakistani Bengalis to flee to India. When Pakistan attacked Indian airfields in Kashmir, India attacked both East and West Paki...
4. India-Pakistan Wars India-Pakistan Wars,name given to the series of conflicts between Indiaand Pakistansince 1947, when the Indian subcontinent was partitioned and the two countries became independent of Great Britain. The most violent outbreaks came in 1947-48, 1965, and 1971. The roots of the conflicts lie in the hostility between Hind...
http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpool.asp?target=@DOCTITLE India-Pakistan Wars
