FuzzyLobster wrote:Who is the least nerdy person here, I wonder?

Mwamba.

---

Or Luciene.

David Cat wrote:Wanna marry me RCB? :P

DC wrote:I'm clearly nerdier than RCB >>

T_T

Nero wrote:

FuzzyLobster wrote:Who is the least nerdy person here, I wonder?

Mwamba.

---

Or Luciene.

Not Mwamba. Definitely not her.
It could only possibly be some of the newbies. They haven't spent enough time here. Airey-chan?

Whoa. War of the Worlds, much? They have ever right to be outraged, you can't instigate that sort of mass panic without reason. It's just disrespectful. And the President should be ashamed for protecting him and contributing to the trauma by scaring them with "It could actually happen."

Article wrote:Saakashvili (the Georgian President) said the report was not aimed at insulting Burjanadze but he nonetheless lashed out at her recent meetings with officials in Moscow.

"Those who are shaking hands with people who have Georgian blood on their hands will never be respected," he said.

No wonder you think it's going to happen if you're unwilling to even talk to the Russians. Political problems do not get solved this way.

Sometimes, it is better not to talk.

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Sometimes, it is better not to talk.

Bollocks to that. Attitudes like that contribute to deaths and other unpleasantness worldwide on a daily basis. Look at Northern Ireland - decades of terrorism finally going away because people have finally started talking to each other rather than blowing each other up. Situations like this continue worldwide. There is never an excuse for not trying to sort things out by talking.

Gah. I was thinking about the Indo-Pak issues when I was typing that. Talks have lead to nothing. Whenever the two countries go for talks, it is followed by terrorist strikes in India, and then investigations prove that it had the hand of some Pakistani people (could be state or non-state actors). India then refuses to talk to Pakistan till Pakistan takes "concrete action" against the perpetrators. Pakistan under Musharaff's government was clearly unwilling and the current one is unwilling+has little powers. And then finally, India gives in to international pressure and starts talking with Pakistan. Guess what happens? The situation usually gets worse with both countries saying completely opposite things. India says this was taken up during the talks and Pakistan says no that never came up and that they discussed something altogether different. This leads to a souring of relationships, with both countries going back to their original stance. That is, India screaming that Pakistan is not doing enough to close terrorist camps and Pakistan screaming about the Kashmir issue.

Oh sorry, that was longer than expected. Just venting my frustrations. But history (at least in this case) has shown that talks just exacerbate the situation. Because the two countries have differing views and want opposite things. Someone has to give in fully for the talks to succeed. And no one is that foolish to give up a country's stance. They would be fleeced.

I know the media (talking about international here) focuses a lot on the government side of talks. But there is another (unmentioned) side. That is people to people contact. And that is a lot better and, in fact, it can be considered to be very friendly. I can give you loads of examples (like Indian journalists covering cricket matches in Pakistan get free rides and free food every time or Pakistani singers winning Indian talent shows with the help of the Indian audience. Or the free surgeries provided by Indian doctors to poor Pakistani children and the huge number of Indians who send anonymous gifts to Pakistani patients who come here for treatment. Or the support the Indian cricket team gets in Pakistan and their love for Bollywood). A lot has changed after 26/11, but trust me, Indians and Pakistanis gel well. You might have realized this, living in a Western country. All my Indian friends out there have extremely close Pakistani friends. And you won't believe the number of programmes and initiates run in the two countries to bring about goodwill between the two nations. And then the stupid governments come [either by having lousy intelligence gathering systems (Indian government) or having other priorities (Pakistani government)] and spoil everything. And this makes the people of the two countries angry and spoils all the efforts and decades worth of trying to foster peace and love. In my opinion, the governments *should* stay out. The civil society is doing a good job, and it should continue. The governments will never reach a consensus in the near future and they are just interested in playing the blame game and trying to assuage the fears of the Opposition parties in their respective countries (who always love to see even a small concession given by the government as a major shift in policy and as playing into the hands of the other country and subverting the democratic rights of a country and what not). Let the civil society do what it is doing. Years later, and if Pakistan becomes a truly democratic country and India learns to safeguard its boundaries, they can make a serious attempt for talks. Hopefully then, there wouldn't be so many contentious issues and the people of the two countries would have had ample time to carry out all their peace initiatives. So even if the talks achieve nothing, it wouldn't affect the relationship between the people of the two countries.

So yeah, I believe talks between governments isn't always necessary.

That sounds like more of a failing of the governments to go into talks with the right attitudes than of the process of talking itself. You don't know where you'd be if they never spoke to each other, either.

Sentynel wrote:That sounds like more of a failing of the governments to go into talks with the right attitudes than of the process of talking itself. You don't know where you'd be if they never spoke to each other, either.

Right attitude? What do you mean by that? The two countries have tried to start anew a million times. Tried to forget the past and all. But it is not possible, really. If a terrorist attack happens, you can't say, hey, it is okay, let us not talk about terrorism because it is a prickly issue. Or let us not complain about it, because that doesn't seem like the right attitude to portray. The two countries have been talking about Kashmir for like, 63 years. And they are no closer to a solution than they were in 1947. It is not the attitude that matters, but the willingness of one side to give in its long-held stance and belief.

Possibly, in the future, some events will force both countries to change their stance. Till then, every talk is nothing but a photo-op and a waste of time and a further dash to those who hope things would get better. We don't need governments to talk to maintain peace. Esp. in cases where government talks are ineffective and only add fuel to the fire because of each repeating the same damn thing. Just allow for more people to people contact till things change.

And yeah, I have absolutely no idea what would have happened if the two never had spoken. And would it have been possible to not talk for over 60 years? I seriously doubt it - I mean, who will give up on an option without even trying it? There would have always been the belief that talks would have solved all the problem. It is another matter that it didn't. But they would have surely tried that option numerous times (like they did). And speaking hasn't achieved anything great- 3 wars and a mini-war.

Wow. That idea would never, ever have struck me.

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:It is not the attitude that matters, but the willingness of one side to give in its long-held stance and belief.

Er, yeah, that's the sort of thing I mean by attitude. If both sides go into talks aiming to get the other to concede, you'll never get anywhere.

Like I said, it's impossible to know what could be going wrong without the talks happening, however little progress they're making, so I can only continue to point to the good that talks have done in places like Northern Ireland, the messes that happen when people don't talk, and hope that the respective governments involved in this case stop pratting around and start taking things seriously.

Sentynel wrote:

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:It is not the attitude that matters, but the willingness of one side to give in its long-held stance and belief.

Er, yeah, that's the sort of thing I mean by attitude. If both sides go into talks aiming to get the other to concede, you'll never get anywhere.

Like I said, it's impossible to know what could be going wrong without the talks happening, however little progress they're making, so I can only continue to point to the good that talks have done in places like Northern Ireland, the messes that happen when people don't talk, and hope that the respective governments involved in this case stop pratting around and start taking things seriously.

No, they don't go into talks trying to get the other to concede completely. They know that would never happen. They try for a mid-ground, but seriously even that involves one person conceding their stand, because both have diagrammatically opposite takes. 'Cause India believes the whole of Kashmir is its and Pakistan believes it is a disputed area. And Pakistan does not accept the status quo (now India is administrating about half of Kashmir and Pakistan the other half). So, if you have to arrive at any solution, it will require one of the two to give in. There is no other option.
Plus, there is another good reason why the two shouldn't talk (at least from India's point of view). In 2004, the two countries had signed a declaration saying that dialogue was dependent on cessation of terrorist activities. Now, that one was never kept up because there have been many more Pak-sponsored terrorist activities even after that. And still, the 2 countries spoke. After 26/11, India said it wouldn't talk to Pakistan unless it took action against the perpetrators. But Pakistan never took any. Jamat-ud-Dawa (a Pakistan-based unit) was banned by the UN for its role in 26/11. So, what is expected of Pakistan? It should at least close down the organization and arrest its leader. It did no such thing. The organization is still flourishing and its leader is busy giving hate speeches against India (we must carry out many more 26/11's! One is not enough!) bang in the middle of Lahore. Lahore, for god's sake! Not north-west frontier or anything. And with 10,000+ supporters all carrying Kalashnikovs! And even if the UN's order isn't enough to arrest him, India has multiple dossiers with proof against him. Pakistan says all that info is not enough to arrest him. For heaven's sake, US and the countries (whose citizens were murdered in 26/11- I think 16 countries in total), too were sent the same dossiers and they all agree there is enough proof to prosecute the leader. yet, Pakistan is not interested.

Seriously, tell me, for years this has been going on. So many terrorists who have attacked Indian cities are protected by the ISI and the military (go google if you don't believe me. And I did put up a wiki link in the other topic. It didn't cover it all, but still). So much proof has been given. So many talks conducted. Yet, Pakistan has not done nothing. It refuses to do anything. Then why should we talk? And India still talks (mainly it has got to do with our stalwart prime ministers who don't believe in stuffs like ignoring a country or anything. The last 3 ones were particularly so). And because of this, it has been dubbed a "soft state" by everyone. No other country on earth is so damn forgiving. Ask the US or Israel to talk to someone who is carrying out multiple attacks against their citizens. They will go and bomb that country in return. I am not saying India should do anything like that, but at least it needn't bow under international pressure (btw, the main reason the US and the NATO countries are asking India to talk to Pakistan and "solve" the Kashmir issue is because Pakistan keeps half its troops in the eastern border-India's side. They say the relationship between the two countries is unpredictable and in case a war erupts, they need the troops ready that side. Like talking has stopped 3 wars. What has stopped the wars is the fact that now both the countries are nuclear-armed. No one wants to risk the other using nuclear weapons during the war. Anyway, the West wants most, if not all, of Pakistan's troop to be stationed on the western border- Afghanistan's side. Like you know, the western side of Pakistan is where the Taliban hideouts are. And they want Pakistan's troops to assist them in their war on terror). Like I mentioned before, talks have achieved nothing and only makes India eat its own words of no talks before action.

Yeah, talks might have worked elsewhere, but they don't work here. Esp. if they just worsen the people to people contact, they should never be carried out. And talks only remind people of the difference that exist between the two countries and even a little ground yielded by one, results in a media furore, a Parliament walk-out and the ordinary person (fed thoughts by the media obviously) gets angry. It spoils everything. Plus talking to a country which is not willing to do anything to protect the citizens of your country is stupidity.

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Ask the US or Israel to talk to someone who is carrying out multiple attacks against their citizens. They will go and bomb that country in return.

Oddly enough, both of those have been stuck in costly and futile perpetual battles against assorted terrorists for years now. We talked to ours and, eventually, however silly it may have seemed, it worked

If Pakistan are just being unreasonable, there's little you can do but keep trying. Not talking only leads to resentment and alienation building up.

So sorry to interrupt but..

I imagine this is fairly big

Anyway back to the Pakistan - India talks...

Hmm...Pakistan has clearly seen enough evidence to arrest it's own organization. Is it known why they are being obtuse and not realizing that there's enough evidence to prosecute? Going in to arrest the group, and breaking international borders and jurisdictions will only destroy the little peace there, creating an Iraq situation. The only solution I can think of right now is for a new government to be placed in, that can at least take control of its legal system. But I doubt it's that simple; I don't know enough information about the Pakistan group.

Just my small thoughts.

Sentynel wrote:

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Ask the US or Israel to talk to someone who is carrying out multiple attacks against their citizens. They will go and bomb that country in return.

Oddly enough, both of those have been stuck in costly and futile perpetual battles against assorted terrorists for years now. We talked to ours and, eventually, however silly it may have seemed, it worked

If Pakistan are just being unreasonable, there's little you can do but keep trying. Not talking only leads to resentment and alienation building up.

Yeah, I know talks have worked marvellously in many areas. And funnily enough, India too has talked to many organizations (within India-some worse than the IRA) working against the country and made peace with them. So yeah, I know talks is a much better way to sort out problems. But sometimes Sent, they don't work! At least in this case, it doesn't! You know me right? I wouldn't ever believe a stand-off is better than talks unless I strongly felt talks only worsened everything. Look, I will try explaining the whole damn thing in a different way now.

Pakistan always says it wants to talk to India. The US and the Western countries too strongly believe in this and they pressurize India to talk to Pakistan after terror attacks. Why? Because, like I said, they want the all the Pakistani troops on the Western border to fight their war of terror. Pakistan is keen too because it has enough problems on its plate as it is. It has problems with its own home-grown militants, Iran (some Shia Muslim problems+ both have accused each other for carrying out attacks in their respective country), Afghanistan (the Afghan President has even threatened send over Afghan troops inside Pakistan to fight the militants there because those militant groups come to Afghanistan and cause havoc. And Afghanistan always blames the ISI. And there are some minor border issues too and Afghanistan is very pro-India) and needless to add, India. They wish to solve the Kashmir issue quickly so that they could at least be free from their Eastern border worry. Plus, US forces it to talk to India too. But, in spite of the good intentions of the Pakistani government (not everyone, but a big majority), the ISI and the army, the controlling powers, have a view different from the others. Both are strongly anti-Indian and both consist of zealots (especially in the upper echelon) who believe strongly in the liberation of Kashmir through proxy wars in India. And they don't like India's presence in Afghanistan (hence the ISI's direct involvement in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. The US has all the transcripts to prove it (they were the ones who showed the proof to India. Yet, the US didn't give anything more than a "stern" warning to Pakistan because it needs Pakistan's help. And I am not blaming it. Every country nowadays needs to be selfish to achieve its objectives). And the ISI and the army would never, ever willingly take action against Pakistani terrorist organizations who carry out attacks in India (like LeT, JuD, JeM etc. which only attack India). They listen to the US because Bush, after 9/11, had threatened to bomb them to the medieval ages if they didn't change their policy of supporting terrorist groups like the Al-Queda or Taliban which work against US interests. And the US keeps providing Pakistan loads of money to help them fight militants, run their economy etc). So the duo stopped (well, they still tip of Taliban militants-I put the link up in the other topic). So, in spite of pressure from the world's superpower and the money and material support from it, the ISI and the army are still reluctant to do what they are being forced to do. So there is no way they will listen to India's demands (of closing terrorist camps). But yes, Obama has been stricter with Pakistan and you can see some results. So yes, US pressure works, albeit not as well as they would like it. And that leads me to the next part. *Sigh*. This is sooo big.

Okay, like I said before, Pakistan says it keeps its troops on its eastern border because of India. Invariably, in times, of peace .That is, when India and Pakistan are on speaking terms and don't seem to accuse each other of anything. And though all their grand talks would have achieved nothing, there are a lot of symbolism acts to prove to the world that the two aren't as big arch-enemies as the world thinks them to be. And one such symbolism act is reducing troops on either side of Kashmir. They would pull them back and if the peace between the two countries last, you can be fully assured that there will be no troop escalation. Doing so would mean you are provoking the other, something the two governments try not to do. Now, this situation is ideal for the US and the NATO. Even if the talks yield nothing, there is goodwill generated and troops are reduced. The troops can now be stationed on the Western border; just like they want it. But, for example, what happens if there are no talks? Pakistan would say the situation is too unpredictable and it needs to put more troops on its eastern borders. And it would do it (and it does it). Obviously this causes the US to fret. It can do two things. Tell Pakistan to do what India is telling it too (I am assuming there are no talks here because of a Pakistan-originated terrorist strike in India). That is, take strict action against the perpetrators. 'Cause if Pakistan does that (I am waiting for such a day), the relations would immediately thaw. The other option is to pressurize India to talk to Pakistan irrespective of the recent terrorist strike. And the Americans have realized that it is far easier to get India to talk than to get Pakistan to act. Plus, throw in the recent Indian Prime Ministers (esp. Manmohan Singh. The man loves Pakistan) who are always willing to give it another chance because, after all, for centuries the two countries were one and that makes us brothers and sisters and what not. Okay, I can't blame them. Everyone has the right to hope. So, India talks to Pakistan and things, on the surface, get better. The US is happy. Now, what would happen if India completely refuses to talk to Pakistan till it closes all Indian-directed terrorist organizations in its country and takes action against all its leaders? And that India sticks to its stand, irrespective of anything? The US has only one option. That is, to tell Pakistan to take action. Oh yes, I think the US and the NATO are capable of getting Pakistan to do that. After all if the ISI, which is said to have had a part in 9/11, can become one of the major intelligence forces in the war against terrorism, then, I am sure they could get it to capture and take action against a few terrorists. And wouldn't that be brilliant??? Wouldn't it solve one of the biggest problems plaguing South Asia today? And wouldn't it improve Indo-Pak relationship? All it needs is India to not hold government-level talks with Pak. The US might find it very difficult to get Pakistan to act, but they can do it. And the US very well knows that the ISI and military support terrorism (just check out any Congressional Hearing in the US about Af-Pak. The issue always crops up. Even a couple of days ago, a US lawmaker spoke about it- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 685638.cms). The US knows everything, yet, because it finds it easier to push India to talk, they don't bother telling Pak to take action. Why should they? After all, the LeT only attacks Indian cities. And it might leave the ISI more reluctant to help the US. US is being selfish. And this approach is helping them. I think it is high time India becomes selfish. It wouldn't just help India, but Pakistan, the whole region, the US (in the long run), the NATO and the world.

Now don't you feel that is a good enough reason not to talk? Obviously, like I mentioned in my very first post about this topic, I feel talks between the two countries is even otherwise achieving nothing and only spoiling the people to people contact, which I believe is more important. But you don't think so (possibly you would too if you read or watched 63 years of meaningless talks) and I am not going to convince you otherwise anymore. And hey, 50% of Indians to think the talks will bear something, so you are not alone :P. I don't feel any need for talks currently. And I gave you my reasons. And if I made any grammatical or spelling mistakes, ignore it. I can't go through it. It would be a torture.

And about US and Israel, how else do you think they should act against terrorists? Talking with those fanatics would achieve nothing. And as if they will come for talks.

NERO (I AM WRITING THIS IS CAPS SO THAT YOU WOULD SEE IT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU ARE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN ON TOP), I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS TODAY EVENING OR TOMORROW. MY HANDS ARE ACHING. AND I HAVE GOT MY EXAM TOMORROW. THE ABOVE THING TOOK ME 1 & A HALF HOURS TO TYPE. AND EVERYONE ELSE IN MY HOUSE WANT THE COMPUTER NOW.

Sentynel wrote:

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Ask the US or Israel to talk to someone who is carrying out multiple attacks against their citizens. They will go and bomb that country in return.

Oddly enough, both of those have been stuck in costly and futile perpetual battles against assorted terrorists for years now. We talked to ours and, eventually, however silly it may have seemed, it worked

....

Well done. Excellent post in my opinion.

And yes. I did read the caps before the monster paragraph

Is it really necessary to quote the entire post?

I get what you're saying, and I appreciate that this is a very big and complicated issue (and I agree that other nations should be doing more to pressure Pakistan into doing more about its problems), I just think that for all they seem to be worse than useless, not talking would only make things worse still, and that you shouldn't write off the talks just because they're going nowhere at the moment.

Nero wrote: Hmm...Pakistan has clearly seen enough evidence to arrest it's own organization. Is it known why they are being obtuse and not realizing that there's enough evidence to prosecute?

The reason the Pakistani ISI and military are taking no action against those groups is because they are only anti-Indian. They don't attack Pakistani cities or the West. It is a kind of proxy war that they are leading to get their objective. By arming and fueling terrorist groups (their own ones and ones in Kashmir), they create a dissent between the people of Kashmir and India. But for some time now, it has been no longer just Kashmir. The groups even attack other Indian states.
And the ISI does the same (bombing Indian establishments) in Afghanistan because they don't like India's presence there. Check out any poll carried out in Afghanistan, and you will see that the country they most like is India. And the Afghanistan president is very much anti-Pakistan and has excellent relationships with India. All this worries Pakistan because when the US and NATO forces will leave Afghanistan, they fear India would have considerable say in the country. Already, in the east they have India to deal with, and if Afghanistan too turns very pro-India, they would be having problems in their western front too. So they try to kill Indians there and make them leave the country before the US-NATO forces leave Afghanistan.

wrote:I get what you're saying, and I appreciate that this is a very big and complicated issue (and I agree that other nations should be doing more to pressure Pakistan into doing more about its problems), I just think that for all they seem to be worse than useless, not talking would only make things worse still, and that you shouldn't write off the talks just because they're going nowhere at the moment.

I am not saying talks shouldn't ever take place. I say there is no need for it now. I feel it is better not to talk in the current circumstances.
Anyway, finally, we agree to disagree. The best under these circumstances, I think :P .

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:

Nero wrote: Hmm...Pakistan has clearly seen enough evidence to arrest it's own organization. Is it known why they are being obtuse and not realizing that there's enough evidence to prosecute?

The reason the Pakistani ISI and military are taking no action against those groups is because they are only anti-Indian. They don't attack Pakistani cities or the West. It is a kind of proxy war that they are leading to get their objective. By arming and fueling terrorist groups (their own ones and ones in Kashmir), they create a dissent between the people of Kashmir and India. But for some time now, it has been no longer just Kashmir. The groups even attack other Indian states.

International pressure would help this a lot

wrote: And the ISI does the same (bombing Indian establishments) in Afghanistan because they don't like India's presence there. Check out any poll carried out in Afghanistan, and you will see that the country they most like is India. And the Afghanistan president is very much anti-Pakistan and has excellent relationships with India. All this worries Pakistan because when the US and NATO forces will leave Afghanistan, they fear India would have considerable say in the country. Already, in the east they have India to deal with, and if Afghanistan too turns very pro-India, they would be having problems in their western front too. So they try to kill Indians there and make them leave the country before the US-NATO forces leave Afghanistan.

Really? They like India? Oh snap. I thought it might be soon Canada, since our forces are living with the residents in rural and some urban areas. But I suppose that makes sense.

Also, the UK is staying in Afganistan for a long time. I doubt India will get a lot of control if the UK is still stationed (and many of our other asshole NATO friends are being sissies and staying in places where any Taliban encounters is a fluke), but once the US and Canada leave, India will have more power.

But from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanista ... _relations

It seems like India already has strong influence on Afghanistan. I'm surprised India has no troops in there.

Wikipedia wrote:India is often regarded as one of Afghanistan's most influential allies.[121] India is the largest regional donor to Afghanistan and has extensively participated in several Afghan reconstruction efforts, including power, agricultural and educational projects.[122][123] Since 2002, India has extended more than US$1.2 billion in aid to Afghanistan.[124] Strong military ties also exist – Afghan security forces regularly get counter-insurgency training in India[125] and India is also considering the deployment of troops in Afghanistan

The last line (not about the training-I know that. The India deploying troops part) surprises me. I have never heard anything of that sort. I hope India doesn't do it. It will complicate everything a lot more. And India has got some concerns about fighting the war on terror under the American banner ('cause, like you told me before, the UN doesn't support the invasion. So it can't fight it under the UN banner). Plus, I don't think India is willing to pay for its troops out there. It would be very costly. They might do it of America extends monetary support or something. Also, Sent and Gladstone once told me that the NATO can flood Afghanistan with its troops, if it wants. That it is an ideological battle and that numbers don't matter much. So I don't think there is any necessity for India to join in. Personally, I think it would be a disaster.

I think one of the reasons why Afghans like India is because it is taking part in no military operation out there. Only construction, opening welfare centres, training, and strengthening democracy and stuff like that. Also, I suppose the fact that India is not a western country helps.