mo293

So we have a large junk since 1948, its called Azad Kashmir... The rest of hala bulla dont count. Oh wait a minute there was Run of Kutch too... LOL...

PaRtyGuyz

here comes another with name Kamal..wow u dont make any sense! when was the last time Pak Army attacked Stupid Indian in Dark? remember 1965, stupid indians wanted to have tea in Lahore and cudnt even cross border...
get ur facts right n then talk..

mo293

Aray yaar why are you arguing with them? No matter how you slice or dice for them its a vijay.. be it surrender to Bin Qasim or the last standoff... Just enjoy their BS and have fun...

Get smart

Hm, there are still a handful of Pakistani's left that still talk about Kargil? Most Pakistanis are only too glad to gloss over the sorry subject. We have to admire the thick skin of the handful though - poor guys! if they celebrate utter defeat this much, imagine how delirious they'll be if they ever taste a scent of victory?

Alas! that will never happen since the stench of terrorist civil was inside Pakistan and the clash of the four "pillars" of the government are ensuring the continued morass.

PartyG & mo: you guys are more to be pitied than censured

kamal123

Are you suffreing from Amnesia...what was Kargil....Did you declare war or what? Your stupid army even did not dare to agree that is your army...They died like dogs in the hands of Indian army...You first straighten your facts right...OK..Anway, it has become common for Pakistan people that be defeated first and then deaclare they morally won in the war. Your cowardice always obvious in the history of war.. dare to declare a open war and see what is going to happen...that is not your ishtyle,anyway..

kamal123

PaRtyGuyz

Get smart, you are not only bringing shame to urself, infact to all the indian losers! for a change, Make some...Some....some Sense!

P.SDid u take ur Anti Muslim/Pakistan pills with VHP/BHP sponsored water yet?

kaka_in_usa

Did you get a gene transplant within last 60 years?

stop calling names..... Argue with points and facts, name calling only shows your frustration and lack of knowledge

iPundit

Faltu

What else they teach in Pakistan ? Which class do u study in ?

Picture of Indian Brig.Hari Singh Deora in Lahore
http(//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brig.Hari_Singh_at_Barkee_Capture.jpg
Check wikipedia 1965 war artilcle for pictures
http(//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965

* Replace with :

.

Faltu

So your Sindhis, Bhuttos, Chaudharys, Rajputs, Gujjars, Ranas , Maliks,Punjabis even your Allama Iqbal and Jinnah were Arabs May you should do better trying to hiding your ancestory.

Well you see in this propoganda , they didn't teach you that your Sindhi ancestors defeated and killed Arabs expeditions 15 times before falling to Bin Qasim, albeit who was also revenged. What a shame.

simplyme

If you dont like the message, badmouth the messenger !!!

bitter_reality

listen kids I know u guys have high opinion about Pak army and like probably u have over rated our military .
As as Insider, who has spent all his youth in military training centers of Army and Navy , its first hand so....trust me Pak Army is no match for Indian army in terms of technology, weapons and size etc.
Examples of our ineffectiveness against India

1. Operation Gibralater of 1965 where we failed against Indian army in Kashmir
2. The defeat of 1971 where we lost half of Pakistan
3. Defeat of Kargil

I know that u kids caz of Patriotism, dont want to accept it! but a fact is a fact....and this is an insider speaking to you ..trust me I know what i am talking about. I don't want to demoralize you but if u want to know what actually happened in Kargil...I can tell u in Private

bitter_reality

Good sportsman's spirit is that " We accept our defeat " and make better preparations for future. Accepting defeat of the past is not unholy.

Cheers
An X Military officer

Words of Quaid

When a war is lost, the impact is felt for a very long time. While internal planners have to understand and accept the reality of defeat so that same mistake is not committed again, revelling on the defeat demoralizes the younger generation

Shogun Ninjuku

^ that doesn't mean you twist and lie about facts! What rationalization can possibly exist to teach a history where outright failures are taught as success?

Tariq Akhtar

^ unfortunately (or fortunately) that happens everywhere but a more in Pakistan.

But I don't think the guys in this argument are product of such misinformation. They seem to be playing poker with Indians

infiniti

I thought 1965 was a stale mate. And that is what I have read every where else.

bitter_reality

Operation Gibraltor was not a stalemate but all of our paratrooper died in Indian occupied Kashmir.
The operation was mastermind by late General Ayob Khan. He had this naive plan that if Pakistan sends paratrooper commandoes into Indian occupied Kashmir..the will head a resistance movement and liberate Kashmir with the help of locals.
The Operation was a complete disaster...all of our paratroopers died..and this gave India a reason to attack Pakistan.

infiniti

I appreciate the info. But the world still considers it a stale mate with India gaining a few square miles more than Pakistan. I can see why Indians will consider it a win, they defended and succeeded in doing that.

bitter_reality

In terms of gaining land it was a stalmate. Non of the country snatched a single inch from each other. But Analysts agree that it was miscalculation of General Ayob Khan..
If he were any smarter he should have attacked India when India was at war with China....but the dumb guy missed that golden opportunity

Ice Cold Water Burns

Pakistan neve had great generals because they always ceded the moral high ground to India.

zxcvb

The problem earlier was that both India's and Pakistanis officers and later generals were trained together by the british prior to 1947. And later (and to this day) going to the british Sandhusrt military academy was required for both the senior Indian and Pakistan army officers.
So both nations officers had the same military doctrine and thinking and that is why they both end up in stalemates.

I don't know about pakistan, but thankfully the new indian army officers seem to be training in Russian, American and Isreali military academies.
And the old indian officers were 'gentlemen officers', they rarely ever saw combat. Since, kashmir and other insurgencies are over 20 years old , the present generation of senior officers have combat experience and are going to be ruthless than the old. The young army lientenat or captain in kashmir 20 years ago (who was running combat operations against kashmiri mujehedeen and probably lost some of his soldier friends in combat) is now majors and one star generals. It remains to be seen how the future india-pakistan combat will take shape.

Faltu

m0293,PaRtyGuyz
I was wondering if you would respond to above post, post # 40 intitially.

siddhantkumar

Politics is keeping citizen from both sides away from truth. Truth is to achieve growth india-pak should stop fighting each other and think about their progress.
Both countries are spending billions $ of their hard earned economy into warfare. A bomb/missile made from 1million$ does not contribute to economy it's lost when goes boom..
Having said that India selected right choice not to cross LOC during kargil or after attack on parliament. Not b'cos of fear of loosing war but fear that both countries will go back to stone age and only west will benefit from that.
I happen to meet many of pakistani in west (where i'm now) and all share similar thought. May be it's education which makes you think out of the box. Many of my friends back in india who are still 'kuye ka mendak' dont think of global economy, country progress and all that.
My advise to all those (pakistani and indians) who still think for war should change their perspective to concentrate on country's progress.

Sa1eem

5Abi: Good post. It is making lot of Indian and Indian propaganda mechines go beserk with their illogical and absurd arguments.

I can put many reasons and references that would confirm that Pakistan gave a good trashing to Indian forces in Kargil and at no point Indian gained back anything at Kargil, until Nawaz gave India Kargil on plate for nothing.

Anyhow, to make thing short, I would only give one reliable reference and would ask some questions. If anyone has answer to those questions without uttering rubbish and absurd, please feel free and we can go on from there ... as later, I can bring 'British Newspaper reports' of events folding during Kargil time (6th July 1999 to 14th July 1999) when Pak army was pulling out ... that would clearly show how Indian were getting the thrashing and that they did not gained anything back at Kargil militarily and only gain they made at Kargil was propaganda. .

Paragraph from reference (book by Talbott ... who was only other person present with Nawaz and Clinton when they talked on Kargil):

When Sharif visited Washington in 1999 to discuss Kargil with Clinton, he insisted, 'I am prepared to help resolve the current crisis in Kargil but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in a specific time-frame,'

After reading above paragraph, instead of bul*sh*ts, please give me logical answer to question: If Pakistan was loosing Kargil and Nawaz went to USA to find save passage for Pakistan army out of Kargil than:

How come Nawaz told Clinton that 'he is prepared to help resolve Kargil cirsis but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in specific time-frame.

Help resolve Kargil crisis? ... But if Nawaz went to save Pakistani forces, he should be begging Clinton to save Pakistani forces, not tell Clinton that he could give help.

demanding ... India must commit to resolve the larger issue in specific time-frame? ... when, if his visit was for face saving, he should not have been in any position to demand or ask for anything ... well ... not only demanding but asking that demand to be met in specific time frame ... how come?

Further, from same referrence: former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbott writes in his new book Engaging India - Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb. 'Clinton came as close as I had ever seen to blowing up in a meeting with a foreign leader,' and told Sharif, 'If I were the Indian Prime Minister, I would never do that. I would be crazy to do it. It would be nuclear blackmail.

Now, how come Clinton got upset ... and started accusing Nawaz of blackmail? ... Well, if Nawaz was there begging to save Pakistan army face, shouldn't Clinton have told Nawaz that ...: What demand? ... What help you are talking about? Are you gone banana? You are here to save face for your army ... you are not here to give favour ... not to give something, so what help you could offer? ... You (Nawaz) are in no position to give help and demand something for help, so what help and what demand? .... Well, is it not surprising that instead of telling off Nawaz, Clinton going hot and started accusing Nawaz of nuclear blackmail? What nuclear blackmail? Please answer, why Clinton got upset and accused Nawaz of Nuclear blackmail?

When Sharif insisted he had to have something to show for his trip to the US beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil, Clinton pointed to the dangers of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous positions.

Now, is it not silly that Shareef referring to his demand, insisting he had to have something to show for his trip ... beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil? Shareef insisting 'he is prepared to help resolve Kargil cirsis but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in specific time-frame'. So, is that what he went to USA, to help resolve Kargil crisis on condition that India commit to resolve larger issue in specific time-frame ... and want to show that back home that he made India agreed to that ... rather Shareef doing unconditional surrender? If that is so, then, where is face saving visit for Pakistan army gone? What demand and unconditional surrender Nawaz was talking about when India was routing Pakistan army anyhow?

Why Clinton have to point out danger of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous position?

Is it not funny of Clinton? Did Clinton gone banana? Was it not (according to Indian propagandist and Nawaz goons) that, Pakistan was already loosing Kargil and Indian army was chasing Pakistan army to its previous position, so Nawaz was there in USA to save face of Pakistan army, then why Clinton