Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 714 posts

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#521

Post by ivell »

hackandthink wrote: post #131
postingawayonhn wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both (though that hasn't always been easy).

"However, Pakistan was a valuable diplomatic partner, and its government helped the United States achieve a rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s." "U.S. prestige was damaged in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime’s actions" https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/south-a…

In context: The Blood Telegram

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K...

It was an active decision by the US.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#522

Post by legolas2412 »

ignoramous wrote: post #385
dd_xplore wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paxtan has always sheltered terrorists, even now they are providing security to LeT, JeM etc.

Hasn't Pak banned both LeT and JeM?

On paper sure. But what is the reality like?

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#524

Post by ivell »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #271
pkd wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird line of reasoning. By this logic the aggressors will always win because the other side should always concede territory for peace. Even if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan, there is no reason why they'd be done aggressing for more territory.

> By this logic the aggressors will always win because the other side should always concede territory for peace Nope. It’s just being realistic about the priorities at play. And there isn’t a clear aggressor in this conflict, it is as old as both states. (Also, countries have bought and sold territories for ages. That doesn’t invite aggression or strike me as wrong.) > if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan, there is no rea…

>They wouldn’t. New Delhi would have to get something that is worth more than that territory in return.

What would that be? Pakistan and India had an agreement to peacefully resolve issues already in 1972 Simla agreement. But they continue to send terrorists to murder indian civilians on indian soil. They never followed the agreement. They invaded twice after that agreement.

Anything that India gets out of Pakistan cannot be trusted. They have been claiming that Osama was not in Pakistan, while taking money from the US to support its war in terror.

I don't think Pakistan has any trustability remaining.

It will continue to provoke and attack India as long as their military rules the nation. Their military's existence is the anti-India stance it propagates.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#525

Post by ivell »

saagarjha wrote: post #364
kumarvvr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One does not negotiate with terrorist supporting military dictatorships.

Pakistan is not a military dictatorship, at least not in its current form. Terrorist supporting, maaaaybe. But a lot of countries are terrorist supporting, and the world is happy to negotiate with them.

>Pakistan is not a military dictatorship

I think here we are looking into a textbook style definition. But for all practical purposes, military rules Pakistan. It is well understood by its own citizens, especially post-Imran Khan.

>But a lot of countries are terrorist supporting, and the world is happy to negotiate with them.

Would like to understand which countries you mean. No one is negotiating with Iran nowadays. India also was willing to negotiate in the past, not anymore it seems.

Support for terrorism as a state policy is to put pressure without major impact to the aggressor nation. The aggressor is in an advantageous position. Terrorism is low cost high impact (non material, but psychological). There is not much leverage for the suffering country here. So negotiations are not long lasting.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#526

Post by [deleted] »

ashoeafoot wrote: post #506
krisoft wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war They have nukes. They don't need to be rich to do massive damage. Sure doing so would have terrible consequences, but cooler heads sometimes don't prevail. Or only prevail after much suffering and pain.

More important ,ever since the multipolar great games resumed , they will have customers for nukes. Trump really was the final nail on deterence reliance ..

[deleted]

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#527

Post by kirubakaran »

su8898 wrote: post #128

A few months ago, I stopped reading random news and decided to stick only to Hacker News. But now, even Hacker News is filled with random content. I guess there's no escaping the news these days.

You could use this filter to remove politics from HN: https://histre.com/hn/?tags=+all-politics

( d: I made it; ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35904988 )

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#528

Post by justin66 »

graemep wrote: post #502
justin66 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not misremembering. The US government warned everyone the invasion was really going to happen, the Ukrainian government warned everyone the invasion was really going to happen, and the Russian government warned everyone the invasion was really going to happen. The mainstream media warned everyone the invasion was going to happen, and the financial markets responded. Some people don't have the sense to come in…

> Some people don't have the sense to come in out of the rain. Those people included almost all western governments who had blithely assumed Russia was not threat, did not react to the previous invasion (and some took the stance Russia had the support of the inhabitants of ethnically Russian areas), did not react to the invasion of Georgia, and generally just assumed it would be OK - which Russia took as a signal the…

Perhaps my impression was colored by the US government actually having a clear picture of what was about to happen. I won't defend Europe too much. It seems to me like Poland, the Nordics and the Baltics see Russia pretty clearly, but everything kind of falls apart the further away from Russia you get.

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#529

Post by macintux »

somenameforme wrote: post #501
macintux wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With Ukraine's entry into NATO appearing increasingly imminent Say what? AFAIK, Ukraine wasn’t even eligible for entry due to the organization’s rules on contested territories.

The most clear trend in modern times is that rules are "flexible" when convenient. Here [1] is the relevant Wiki page, dated to the day before Russia's invasion. NATO had repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine would be accepted into NATO, all that was missing was a date. In the context of this, there was ongoing escalation between Russia and NATO. Russia repeatedly sought any sort of means or agreement to ensure that the…

In the absence of a membership action plan, NATO saying "Yes, someday Ukraine will be a member" (something that they were barely able to agree on in 2008, and nothing changed in the 15 years after that) is hardly "imminent".

Re: India launches attack on 9 sites in Pakistan and Pakistani Jammu and Kashmir

#530

Post by roncesvalles »

chgs wrote: post #439
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New proxy war between US-aligned India and China-supported Pakistan? My understanding is that China and India don't tend to get along politically.

Not convinced India is particularly US aligned, and while Pakistan is relations have deteriorated in the past, the us has backed Pakistan more than India. Maybe this time the us would back India as part of a proxy war.

The thing is, the US doesn't want partners; it wants allies. And that's too big of a commitment for India to make. This is basically the central tension that keeps US-India relations from moving too fast.
Post reply on HN