PDA

View Full Version : US intervention in the Kashmir issue



michigan
13 Nov 03,, 21:41
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/


US intervention in Kashmir dispute "inevitable": Pakistan minister(Updated at 1930 PST)



NEW DELHI: Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Wednesday said the United States would have to get involved if the five-decade Kashmir dispute with India is ever to be solved.

India considers Kashmir a purely bilateral issue and is vehemently opposed to any third-party mediation in the dispute.

"Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf has asked the US president to help restore dialogue with India," said Rashid, who is in India for a South Asian information ministers' meeting.

"Ultimately superpowers will step in, they will get involved in solving the problem, they will facilitate talks... US intervention is inevitable. The practical is completely different from the theoretical," he told a press conference.

Leader
14 Nov 03,, 01:05
Originally posted by michigan
"Ultimately superpowers will step in, they will get involved in solving the problem, they will facilitate talks...

Case you missed it there is only one superpower. The other one went up in smoke when their people were tired of being oppressed.


US intervention is inevitable.

It's hard to imagine such a scenario especially one that would be good for Pakistan.

s_qwert63
14 Nov 03,, 01:49
Originally posted by Leader
Case you missed it there is only one superpower. The other one went up in smoke when their people were tired of being oppressed.



:LOL :LOL :LOL

you're full of good ones today!

Jay
14 Nov 03,, 02:13
"Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf has asked the US president to help restore dialogue with India," said Rashid, who is in India for a South Asian information ministers' meeting.
yep i still remember Nawaz Shriff, then PM of Pakistan begging Clinton to urge and restrain India. :D



India considers Kashmir a purely bilateral issue and is vehemently opposed to any third-party mediation in the dispute.
after surrending 90,000 service men and people, Pakistan agreed to solve tha matter bi-laterally. What happened suddenly now ? :D



"Ultimately superpowers will step in, they will get involved in solving the problem, they will facilitate talks... US intervention is inevitable. The practical is completely different from the theoretical," he told a press conference.
Actually i'm just waiting for that day :w00t

Ray
14 Nov 03,, 02:31
It is always a daydream that Pakistan indulges in. Good for them. If one can't dream, then all will be lost. Hope springs eternal in the human breast wrote Wordsworth.:D

Leader
15 Nov 03,, 01:00
Originally posted by s_qwert63
:LOL :LOL :LOL

you're full of good ones today!

Only the truth. I take it that you take issue with the second part. Or are you about to argue that Russia is still a superpower? :LOL

davor_suker
15 Nov 03,, 03:26
Why cant America let others solve their own problems? it sure isnt theirs.

ZFBoxcar
15 Nov 03,, 05:39
davor, in case you didnt read the article this says nothing about what the US WANTS to do, its what this Pakistani dude thinks the US should do.

s_qwert63
15 Nov 03,, 09:37
Originally posted by Leader
Only the truth. I take it that you take issue with the second part. Or are you about to argue that Russia is still a superpower? :LOL

Its the whole American propoganda thing...
"They fell apart because they were tired of being opressed!"
You don't know anything about the USSR in the 80's. Period.

Praxus
15 Nov 03,, 16:29
It collapsed because it was a flawed system, plane and simple. If Communism creates so much wealth and properity then how come the Soviet Union collapsed and China is moving towards a more Capitalistic system?

Communism essentially makes you a slave to the state. If that is not opression then I don't know what is.

Leader
15 Nov 03,, 18:15
Originally posted by davor_suker
Why cant America let others solve their own problems? it sure isnt theirs.

The only problem with letting India and Pakistan solve their own problems is that their solution might be to nuke the hell out of each other.

Leader
15 Nov 03,, 18:17
Originally posted by s_qwert63
Its the whole American propoganda thing...
"They fell apart because they were tired of being opressed!"
You don't know anything about the USSR in the 80's. Period.

Our media is propaganda? This coming from someone that defends the soviet dictatorship. :LOL

Ray
15 Nov 03,, 20:08
Not propaganda. Mere hallucinations.

s_qwert63
15 Nov 03,, 21:31
Originally posted by Leader
Our media is propaganda? This coming from someone that defends the soviet dictatorship. :LOL

see...

s_qwert63
15 Nov 03,, 21:34
Originally posted by Praxus
It collapsed because it was a flawed system, plane and simple. If Communism creates so much wealth and properity then how come the Soviet Union collapsed and China is moving towards a more Capitalistic system?

Communism essentially makes you a slave to the state. If that is not opression then I don't know what is.

Oh, communism does work. You need a strong and a resolved government for it in order to work, the people must be motivated and there should be no nationalistic movements and outside powers trying to bring it down.
If we would have spent all out GDP on the wellfare of the people, then we would have been far better off.
hav you been to the former USSR?
Do you know what it is like now, under your sick capitalist ideology?
Most people crave and envy the USSR.

Praxus
15 Nov 03,, 22:27
Do you know what it is like now, under your sick capitalist ideology?
Most people crave and envy the USSR.

Last time I checked the Crony in Russian Capitalism is Socialism, and private property is protected only to a very limited degree. To call russia capitalist is a total perversian of the term.

Facts:
1.) Most property in Russia has not been privatized.
2.) The state continues to have large ammounts of control over private industry as the courts are notable anti-buisness.
3.) The State devalued the ruble theaving from the Russian people. This is Statism not Capitalism.
4.) Russia ranks 135th for Economic Freedom.
5.) Russia has the lowest possible rating for the protection of property rights.

You must not know what Capitalism is.

The richest countries in the world are in the top 30(United States is the freeist out of the G8 countries)

s_qwert63
15 Nov 03,, 22:44
good, the countries resources must belong to the people.
in kazakhstan the president privatized the energy sector so he could fill up his swiss bank account.
now about 80% of our oil is controlled by the americans... goodies, the only difficulty they have is exporting it from hte caspian region.

Praxus
15 Nov 03,, 23:28
in kazakhstan the president privatized the energy sector so he could fill up his swiss bank account

That's cronyism, not capitalism.

s_qwert63
15 Nov 03,, 23:33
Zero govt interference = capitalism, so he was making a step towards that.

Leader
15 Nov 03,, 23:49
I think a translation would be helpful here:


Originally posted by s_qwert63
Oh, communism does work.

Translation: “Close your eyes and ignore the slaughter of tens millions of people.”


You need a strong and a resolved government for it in order to work,

Translation: “Dictatorships are great!”


the people must be motivated

Translation: “The government should force them to work.”


and there should be no nationalistic movements and outside powers trying to bring it down.

Translation: “You are not an individual, and therefore are not entitled to create any group that is not helpful to the State.”


If we would have spent all out GDP on the wellfare of the people, then we would have been far better off.

Translation: “All nations should disarm. So that it will be easier for us to conquer the world.”


hav you been to the former USSR?

Translation: “The Russian people are incapable of self-governance and must be oppressed by a dictatorship.”


Do you know what it is like now, under your sick capitalist ideology?

Translation: “Don't look at the United States, the most powerful, wealthiest nation on earth, as a example of capitalism. Instead look at Russia a nation just years out of wonderful communist rule.”


Most people crave and envy the USSR.

Translation: “I'm crazy!”

Praxus
16 Nov 03,, 00:04
Zero govt interference = capitalism, so he was making a step towards that.

The Governments job in a Capitalist society is to protect you from force and fraud. Him lining his pockets with private money is cronyism not capitalism.

Leader
16 Nov 03,, 00:07
Originally posted by Praxus
The Governments job in a Capitalist society is to protect you from force and fraud. Him lining his pockets with private money is cronyism not capitalism.

You go to understand the all bad things in the world are as a direct result of capitalism. :roll

Vaman
16 Nov 03,, 00:38
Why did this discussion suddenly turn towards capitalism vs. communism or for that matter socialism?

As far as the US being "free-est" of the free-traders, it will always be the strongest advocates as long as its trade goes their way.
The minute the free-trade argument turns towards imports of steel from cheaper producers and jobs and services moving off-shore, suddenly the discussion would turn towards "protecting local economy" etc etc.

Vaman
16 Nov 03,, 00:49
As far as the US is concerned, it really has no business in Kashmir whether its a superpower or not.
The only reason that Pakistan has been emboldened in the past to indulge in misadventures in the past is because its dictators recieved military and finincial support from the US...and that continues to this day.

Leader
16 Nov 03,, 01:33
Originally posted by Vaman
Why did this discussion suddenly turn towards capitalism vs. communism or for that matter socialism?

As far as the US being "free-est" of the free-traders, it will always be the strongest advocates as long as its trade goes their way.
The minute the free-trade argument turns towards imports of steel from cheaper producers and jobs and services moving off-shore, suddenly the discussion would turn towards "protecting local economy" etc etc.

It is hard to compete against companies that are subsidized by the host countries. The US has three chooses:

[list=1]
Let those companies go out of business
Subsidize them
Raise tariffs
[/list=1]

Free trade shouldn't just be considered having no tariffs. It should also entail having equal competition.
.

Leader
16 Nov 03,, 01:34
Originally posted by Vaman
As far as the US is concerned, it really has no business in Kashmir whether its a superpower or not.
The only reason that Pakistan has been emboldened in the past to indulge in misadventures in the past is because its dictators recieved military and finincial support from the US...and that continues to this day.

Well I we know where your from.

Confed999
16 Nov 03,, 01:53
Hey Ray, would you mind telling me/us what you think about Kashmir? Why things are the way they are, and what should be done, in your opinion.

Vaman
16 Nov 03,, 02:08
Well I we know where your from.
And that would be in aid of what?



It is hard to compete against companies that are subsidized by the host countries. The US has three chooses:
Let those companies go out of business
Subsidize them
Raise tariffs
Free trade shouldn't just be considered having no tariffs. It should also entail having equal competition.
Equal competition is a rarity and a lot of cases you can go as far as to debate whether it exists at all. Where the host countries do not subsidise some provide tax benefits, others make up by lower interest rates for capital expenditures and some others would provide for higher depreciation charges..all of them adding to lower cost structures.
Why should they not be treated as "unfair competition"?

Praxus
16 Nov 03,, 03:04
It is hard to compete against companies that are subsidized by the host countries. The US has three chooses:
Let those companies go out of business
Subsidize them
Raise tariffs
Free trade shouldn't just be considered having no tariffs. It should also entail having equal competition.

I am of the belief that no one should get subsidized and there should be no terrifs.

Jay
17 Nov 03,, 21:45
Originally posted by Praxus
I am of the belief that no one should get subsidized and there should be no terrifs.

i guess we dont live in that wonderland!

Back to the topic,

IMO, US will not/shud not interfere in Kashmir directly. It simply is not their problem.

Pakistan has agreed to solve this matter bi-laterally and we'r looking forward for the same. Yes we do often cry about the "foreign" assistance to pakistan and its jehadi establishments, but I guess in the world of geo-politics its all good.

Its better if Pakistani govt weeds out fundamentalism and muslim mullahism. kashmir problem has already spiralled out and it spilled in to Pakistan. All the KAshmiri resistant movements are filled with Pakistani and Afghani mercenaries. the quest of Kashmiris has long hijacked and turned to a religious fiasco.

I think USA right now has middle east problems to solve, which threatens ISrael and other American interests there. If USA really wants, it can restrict the movement of Pakistani jehadis on its border.

Lunatock
21 Nov 03,, 19:08
Originally posted by Leader
Our media is propaganda? This coming from someone that defends the soviet dictatorship. :LOL

It might be a phase. Squirt probably just feels Gulag-sick. :w00t

Ray
21 Nov 03,, 19:59
Originally posted by Confed999
Hey Ray, would you mind telling me/us what you think about Kashmir? Why things are the way they are, and what should be done, in your opinion.

Kashmir is an interesting subject and it can't be discussed within the space constraints of this post.

Im my opinion, Pakistan has a role to play to help US as a listening post into China and so the US will never upset Pakistan. Therefore, Islamic fundamentalists of the world will be bankrolled to cause chaos.

Historically, Kashmir joined India. The Plebescite should have been done. The UN resolution stated that it would be carried out when Pak vacated Kashmir. This was not done and so no Plebescite was held. The rest is history.

India held an election in J&K recently as it was due for an election which are being held regularly. This time it was different as Foreign envoys watched the Election which was supervised by a Christian Election Commissioner. The US Ambassador who also observed the election stated it was a fair and free election inspite of the threat of the gun of the Pak funded terrorists, 44% and more voted! Had the Kashmiris felt that they wanted to join Pakistan they would have abstained from voting since the terrorists and the Pak sponsored Hurriyat Conference [ a motley group of Pak sponsored leaders] warned all not to vote. Also what may not be known is that in Kashmir NO non Kashmiri can take citizenship of the State or hae property or business. Now if the Western ambassadors watch an election and feel it was free and fair, there is little more that one can do to prove it is so.

Kashmir can be solved if India was Israel, but then India is not Israel. So, we will move on merrily and more will die! QED. Such is the fate of the world at the hands of the terrorists. When the US will all its might is floundering, no miracle can be expected from a third world nation.

Trooth
30 Nov 03,, 17:29
I would imagine Pakistan's request for US involvement is to cash in the "favour" regarding the Pakistani position when it came to the US and the Taleban?