Kenneth Timmerman - Page 4

**Officer of Engineers** · 04-04-2004, 20:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray
Colonel,

Possibly we too would have solved the Indo Pak problem long back. Why it was not done was economically we were not strong then and the US backed Pakistan, which was a part of the CENTO and SEATO. We were also getting economic aid from the US.

Sir,

I'm getting a strong migrane trying to follow the geo-political-strategic USSR/Russia-US-China-India-Pakistan picture. If you have figure a way to follow it through without the aid of mind-altering drugs, I really, really would appreciate your insight.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray
The RAND analysis on Indo Pak geo poltical and strategic scenario is interesting on this subject.

Would you be so kind as to give me the title of that article. I've searched RAND with little success.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray
India would not be be in the interet of India to march onto Islamabad as suggested by you. Pakistan is not economically viable. India has enough woes and there would be chaos if India had to also look after the poor multitudes after marching on to Islamabad. We have our hands full already. A strong and stable Pakistan is India's best bet. A hungry stomach is a devil's workshop (forgive me for this tweaked metaphor).

Sir,

I now understand this point, thanks to your insight. I was not suggesting a course of action, merely trying to illustrate my poor example. Obviously, I failed.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray
At present, the nuclear threat is alive, During the Kargil War Pakistan used the nuke blackmail. I reckon the geo political situation has changed and so the US told Pakistan to back off and that it would be sorted out if they used the nuke. It is this political irresponsibility of the Pakistani leadership that put it during that time in the international doghouse and for the first time the Western countries supported India against Pakistan. This was also the turning point of the warming of Indo US relationship also.

That is so confusing to me that my migrane is throbing. Was the Pakistani leadership that stupid to actually think that the major nuclear powers are willing to tolerate Pakistani threats no matter what their nature?

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray
In so far as Iraq is concerned, the US should have first taken on the Taliban and brought stability there and then taken on Iraq. Now it has bitten more than what it can chew. It is similar to the German's violating the Principles of War - Selection and Maintenence of Aim wherein the German veeered off to Kiev when the original intention was to march onto Moscow in WW II leading to their retreat thereafter having become a spent force by the time they reached Moscow.

You are entitled to your views and none can grudge that. However, Saddam did not have WMD nor was he connected with the Taliban. In fact the Los Angeles Times survey shows Iraq as the third most democratic state amongst the Moslem nations. Saudi Arabia the 18th. This I learnt from the Late Edition show compered by Wolf Blitzer yesterday on the CNN. The same show also showed a discussion of three former National Security advisors - Henry Kissinger, Sandy Berger and one Lt Gen whose name I forget on Iraq. 600 US soldiers I beleive have been killed, but then that is a small number actually.

Sir,

I believe I did not make my point. My point was that the US would found one excuse or another to turn on Saddam. It lasted long enough. Trooth has stated that we were jumping back and forth about the issues dealing about going to war with Saddam. It was at the very last minute that the US settled on the WMD issue. At play were other factors which included the Al Qeida link, freeing the Iraqi people, punishing Saddam for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. If none of these would have worked, the US would have found another excuse.

Ray · 04-05-2004, 11:33 AM

The RAND report is 'Stability in South Asia: Prospect of Indo Pak Nuclear Conflict' Ashley J Tellis.

yes during the Kargil Conflict, the Pak leadership did use the threat of nuclear weapons.

04-05-2004, 11:33 AM	#47 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,195 Country:	The RAND report is 'Stability in South Asia: Prospect of Indo Pak Nuclear Conflict' Ashley J Tellis. yes during the Kargil Conflict, the Pak leadership did use the threat of nuclear weapons. __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)