Pakistan threatens to use nukes

[Eli]

From that MSBNC report :

three dozen warplanes in the area, roughly triple the Pakistani number.

Are they out of their mind? Going to war with 36 and 12 planes?

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Eli

Are they out of their mind?

[Ned]

Originally posted by kolpo

But if you say that India is bad because it doesn't let Kamsir go must you also condemt China for not allowing to let Tibet go. I think that the majority of Tibet would prefere both Independance and joining India above being a part of China.

Agreed. I wonder what the UN position is on a free Tibet?

China also re-conquered Turkestan in the 1949 and renamed it Xinjiang province. There they are experiencing moslem terrorist acts similar to those we see elsewhere in the world. This is why China supports the war on terror.

But Chinese occupation of Tibet and Turkestan province also raises the larger issue of when a culturally independent people have a right of self-determination. The people of Turkestan are Uyghurs, better known as Huns.

Here is a link to a Turkestan site. http://www.afn.org/~afn20372/pol/fet.html

Since taking Turkestan, China has moved large numbers of native Han Chinese into the occupied territories to make the acquisition permanent. Here is an Amnesty International report that details the extreme brutality of the occupation. I wonder if this is "legal?" What is the UN position? What is S. Kroeze's position for that matter?

http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/ASA170181999

[faded glory]

36 and 12 planes? Im certain pakistan has about 70-100 F-16's capable of dropping a nuclear weapon on India cities. India has the same amount of MiG-29's capable of much the same..


Think of the conflict as this, as Netanyahu put it. Its a game of chicken in Vehicles...right now the vehicles are getting closer and neither one appears to wanna wheel out of it.

[Eli]

Originally posted by faded glory
36 and 12 planes? Im certain pakistan has about 70-100 F-16's capable of dropping a nuclear weapon on India cities. India has the same amount of MiG-29's capable of much the same..

But not in Kashmir, as the report says.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I didn't hear this yet, as I am enjoyin wonderful British weather (before the nuclear winter ) however I am convinced that humans are far too stupid not to use nuclear weapons again and the fact that USA and Russia ended teh cold war without using nukes is a miracle and whatever you say of those regimes, that requires respect from both countries.

However as more countries and power hungry "crazy" leaders have nukes the thing is inevitable i'd say.

I just hope that I wont be there directly when it happens even though a serious conflict will affect the whole world.

Anyway... my current TFC nick is Gettin' ready for WWIII

[Az]

actually, FG, Paikistan has fewer than 50 F-16s. and they're going to use missiles anyway. who uses nuclear bombers?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Eli


But not in Kashmir, as the report says.

Why would you put the planes in Kashmir? They're just likely to get blown up by artillery fire. It's not that big a province, so you keep them back from the front lines...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Dr. Strangelove, regardless of Mountbatten's intentions, when the maharajah did not immediately decide to go to Pakistan, but instead indicated he was going to opt for independence (a goal that they still want even 'til today), Pakistan Pashtoon led by Pakistan army officers invaded. This is August. The maharaja asked for Indian military assistance. This was denied unless the prince declared for India. This he did in October only when his capital was under extreme pressure and was about to be overrun.

It is clear that Pakistan would not accept the decision of the maharaja to be independent - probably because of the majority Moslem population.

The Pakistanis still maintain that this was a local uprising by unaffiliated freedom fighters not willing to have their fate decided by a hereditary leader. In the past they've even suggested that the affair was staged.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Agreed. I wonder what the UN position is on a free Tibet?

When was Tibet an indepedent country last?

Originally posted by Ned
China also re-conquered Turkestan in the 1949 and renamed it Xinjiang province.

It had been called Xinjiang for several hundred years before that, if that means anything.

Originally posted by Ned
But Chinese occupation of Tibet and Turkestan province also raises the larger issue of when a culturally independent people have a right of self-determination.

Does the same issue apply to the United States, which is really a patch work of groups that are culturally independent?

Originally posted by Ned
Here is an Amnesty International report that details the extreme brutality of the occupation. I wonder if this is "legal?" What is the UN position? What is S. Kroeze's position for that matter?

http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/ASA170181999

Read the report. Rather unprofessionally done. Treated certain information sources as gospel and others were dismissed out of hand.

[Ned]

Urban Ranger, If you know, what does the UN say about the Chinese occupation of E. Turkestan?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Urban Ranger, If you know, what does the UN say about the Chinese occupation of E. Turkestan?

Nothing.

[Urban Ranger]

What exactly does "occupation" mean? Is the US Native American land illegally occupied by white men?

[notyoueither]

The UN doesn't say much about events 100 years before it's time.

[Gatekeeper]

UR:

Goodness! An Amnesty International report that is "unprofessional" and treats sources unequally?! I didn't think that was possible with AI; I've always thought their reports that criticize the United States were gospel! But if they can goof up in regards to China and Tibet, then they can goof up elsewhere, too!

Gatekeeper