India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against Pak

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

You really from Finland?
Cuz I see "Xinhua News Agency" Water marked on the Pic which you have posted.
It could probably be cuz of whats pulled upto you when you search images from behind the Great Firewall!!! Images from native sources are flashed first..eh?
Xinhua in European search???!!!?? is a rarity!! especially when you search for Finnish news on European version of search .
Damn, my cover is blown...Ok, I am from PLA foreign counter intelligence division India sector. Guess I have to change to Guam section now. Damn my rice is also getting cold, where's the chopstics?
 

ninja85

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
830
Likes
353
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

You should stop these violations with Pakistan. You have been separated for 70 years and still fighting. Finland separated from Russia hundred years ago and have had good relations for the past 70 years. This fight will take you to economic and mental doom. How do you raise your children? To hate Pakistan and China? Hardly gives good start for a constructive life.
finland knows better not to mess with russia otherwise russia will fu*k finland :taunt::taunt::taunt:
and russia don't have interest in finland so they have good relations,

paki country is not just separated that land was snatched away from india on basis of religion in horrific bloodshed and it was not enough for pakis,
paki dreams of breaking india into parts,
paki creats destroys social harmony by creating religious tensions between hindus,sikhs and muslim communities in india
pakibeggars spread terrorism in india ,
supports to anti india activities,
supports naxalism by giving them weapons,
attacked india 4 times,
and have nuclear weapons,
and you never know when military coup happens in paki.
 

ninja85

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
830
Likes
353
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

Ok, this is obviously a touchy subject. You look like Europe in the middle ages. The road is long. I have to study your conflict a little bit more I guess.
do that before trolling again or join the club of @genius and @Neo.:rofl::taunt1::pound::laugh::taunt::lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,919
Likes
98,471
Country flag
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

Damn, my cover is blown...Ok, I am from PLA foreign counter intelligence division India sector. Guess I have to change to Guam section now. Damn my rice is also getting cold, where's the chopstics?
:lol:
Thats a sport!!!
Your comment had me in splits!! :lol:
Just an observation mate..

Doesnt matter where you are from as long as you are not talking like a delusional Paki in total denial of the world around them.
 

ninja85

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
830
Likes
353
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

I guess that if you look at the population rich countries in the world: CHINA, US, INDIA, RUSSIA, INDONESIA, TURKEY, you all have some kind of skirmishes all the time going on. Maybe it took for Germany and Japan a total catastrophe, a "year zero" to find a better way forward without war. Truth is also that with your huge size these small conflicts can be kept going on for years and years...
kind of dumb logic.:rofl::laugh::lol:
 

ninja85

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
830
Likes
353
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

I have seen very little constructive ideas to normalize your relations with PAK/CHI, your conflicts look from my perspective like Israel/Palestine.
meaning you dont have any understanding of indian sub continent situation and on second part not all conflicts are alike because of reasons and situations like geopolitics are different in different regions.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

Damn, my cover is blown...Ok, I am from PLA foreign counter intelligence division India sector. Guess I have to change to Guam section now. Damn my rice is also getting cold, where's the chopstics?
@jouni, let me answer all your questions comprehensively.

The situation between India and Pakistan is very different from situation between Israel and Palestine. Why? Because India is a multi-religious multi-ethnic country which Israel is NOT. India has always welcomed all religions. This is why more Muslims live in India compared to Pakistan.

Pakistan has an eternal desire to destroy India. It is impossible for India to do anything but prepare itself in light of such desire of our esteemed neighbour.

If you want to know about Pakistan, you should learn Urdu, the national language of Pakistan and then read Urdu language newspapers published in Pakistan. You will know what I am saying.

You should also study Pakistani text books and compare that to Indian text books taught in schools.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

I have seen very little constructive ideas to normalize your relations with PAK/CHI, your conflicts look from my perspective like Israel/Palestine. I just want to tell you that there should be another way. Europe was riddled with wars for centuries, but it find a way forward. So should you, somebody should take initiative.
I am sure you know about Karelia and what Mannerheim did and what it is now.

Surely, you could have peace with Russia and not have the issues as below

Finland feeling vulnerable amid Russian provocations

Wedged hard against Russia's northwestern border, peaceable Finland has long gone out of its way to avoid prodding the nuclear-armed bear next door.

But now the bear is provoking Finland, repeatedly guiding military planes into Finnish airspace and deploying submarines and helicopters to chase after Finnish research vessels in international waters.

The incidents are part of a pattern of aggressive Russian behavior that has radiated across Europe but that has been especially unnerving for countries such as Finland that live outside the protective bubble of NATO.

As Russian-backed separatists have eviscerated another non-NATO neighbor this year — Ukraine — Finnish leaders have watched with growing alarm. They are increasingly questioning whether the nonaligned path they navigated through the Cold War can keep them safe as Europe heads toward another period of dangerous standoffs between West and East.



"We have a long history with Russia — not that peaceful all the time. So everything the Russians are doing, surely the Finns notice and think very carefully about what that might mean," Finnish President Sauli Niinisto said in an interview at his coastal residence in this capital city, just a two-hour drive from the Russian border.

In the case of the recent air incursions, he said, the message was clear: "They were testing how we'd react."

Niinisto said Finland's -response — scrambling American-made F-18 Hornet fighter jets to intercept the Russian planes — was strong enough to ward off further Russian aggression.

But the palpable anxiety in this country that many in the West consider a model of progressive and stable democratic governance reflects how unsettled Europe has become since Russia's annexation of Crimea in March.

Many in Helsinki are convinced that Russia will not remain deterred for long and say Finland needs to fundamentally rethink elements of its security policy that have been bedrock principles for decades.

"People used to think European Union membership was enough to protect us," said Tarja Cronberg, a former member of the Finnish and European parliaments. "But now that's being questioned."

Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb has argued that the country needs to join NATO, and a growing share of the public seems to agree, although the -issue remains hugely sensitive here.

Even Finns who favor membership in the alliance acknowledge that joining would be a gamble, with Russia threatening to disrupt the peace and prosperity this country has long enjoyed if Finland makes a sudden lurch toward the West.

"It's going in a terrifying direction," said Elisabeth Rehn, a former Finnish defense minister who favors NATO membership. "It's only been 100 years since we gained our independence from Russia. Crimea was a part of Russia, too. Will they try to take back what belonged to them 100 years ago?"

Rehn said she doubts Russia would go that far but said the fear of Russian military aggression is real.

"We don't have a normal relationship with Russia," said Rehn, who as a child watched boys from her village come home in coffins after battling Soviet troops in World War II. "We all like the Russians. They sing the same melancholic songs that we do. But we are afraid of their leadership."

Finland is hardly the only one. Next door in Sweden, the country's armed forces mounted their largest operation since the Cold War last month to hunt for a suspected Russian submarine. Swedish defense chiefs may have viewed the hunt as a chance to compensate for a conspicuous lapse last year, when Russian warplanes simulated an air assault on Stockholm and the Swedish military failed to react.

Like Finland, Sweden has remained outside NATO even as other Baltic nations — including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — have joined.

But NATO membership has not protected those countries from Russian probing, which has extended in recent months across Europe, as far afield as Portugal.

A report issued this month by the European Leadership Network, a London-based think tank, documented nearly 40 incidents that together "add up to a highly disturbing picture of violations of national airspace, emergency scrambles, narrowly avoided midair collisions, close encounters at sea, simulated attack runs, and other dangerous actions happening on a regular basis over a very wide geographical area."

The report concluded that Russia was not trying to provoke a conflict but that the behavior "could prove catastrophic" because of the risk of unintended escalation.

Russian officials have brushed off the significance of the breaches. Speaking in Washington this month, Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, said they were the result of an increase in military training flights.

Such explanations are viewed with extreme skepticism here in Finland, where the country's airspace was violated in August three times in one week. The breaches came just days before Finland forged greater cooperation with NATO at the alliance's summit in Wales, and leaders here say they were a clear signal from Moscow that Finland dare not go any further.

Finland, a nation of 5 million people, has an 800-mile border with Russia, which has a population nearly 30 times as large. Moscow would undoubtedly consider NATO membership a direct challenge in territory that was marked as neutral space during the Cold War. A Kremlin adviser said earlier this year that if Finland and Sweden join NATO, it could lead to World War III.

Finland already has taken substantial steps toward the West, joining with fellow European Union members in imposing sanctions on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. But Finland also has upped its trade ties with Russia and leans heavily on its eastern neighbor for oil and gas.

Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said in an interview that Russia benefits from its relations with Finland and has no incentive to start a war.

"From a Russian point of view, it's the most stable and least problematic frontier they have, and I believe they want to keep it that way as long as they have no reason to believe that the Finnish territory would be used for hostile action," Tuomioja said.

Still, Finland is taking few chances, boosting defense spending and border patrols while tightening relations with Sweden. "Our thinking has always been that if Russia comes here, it might mean the end of us, but it would cost Russia so much they would think twice," said Hanna Smith, a Russia scholar at the University of Helsinki.

Niinisto suggested that logic still stands, pointing to the -country's quarter-million-strong armed forces, which are supported through conscription, and noting that "250,000 men is something you have to at least take notice of."

But he also doesn't rule out calling in reinforcements — and considers the NATO option necessary to retain to keep Russia at bay.

"I'm not against NATO. I see that as a possibility," said Niinisto, who regularly talks to senior Russian leaders, including President Vladimir Putin. "It has to be an open choice, and that is important, because it is also part of our balance."
Finland feeling vulnerable amid Russian provocations - The Washington Post
Now, things are happening at Ukraine.

So, why can't you constructive ideas to normalize your relations with Russia? ;)
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

"Peace" is not something that can be bought and sold. Peace is not some artificial construct that can be created by some politician. Peace comes from genuine desire.

I can say I love Pakistan but that statement is unlikely to establish peace between the two countries.

Peace will eventually come from inter-dependence and trust. This is what the Indian government has always said and always tried to do.

Pakistan must show it means business. What I see from Pakistani are crude threats - now most interesting threat from a poster on this discussion board that Russia will cease to be India's partner. Such threats do not cause any goodwill for Pakistan in India.

Let Pakistan allow transit trade and let Pakistan open its market to Indian goods. We shall watch Pakistani actions. We have long lost trust in Pakistani words.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

In interviews, Finland's leaders see peril in standoff between Russia and the West

Washington Post London Bureau Chief Griff Witte sat down for separate interviews with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto and Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja in Helsinki. The following are excerpts from those interviews.

Preisdent Sauli Niinisto

The Washington Post: We've seen in the past few months various instances of what seems to be provocative behavior by Russia. You've experienced that here in Finland. I'm wondering what you think Russia's objective is.

Niinisto: Well, first we have this catastrophe in the Ukraine. But alongside that catastrophe there's a lot of tension between Russia and the West. And what we have seen now, in the Baltic Sea area, is surely a [result] of these kind of increased tensions internationally.We have had five violations of our airspace during the summer.

WP: The concern is that something like this could escalate very quickly. Is that a concern that you have?

SN: I wouldn't say it would escalate as a military conflict very easily, not intentionally. They were testing how we'd react. But accidents might happen.

WP: Is there a broader strategic objective on Russia's part? It seems like there is a new push.

SN: Undoubtedly that is due to the tension I described. The Russians want to show "we are here."

WP: How have events in Ukraine and how have these violations in Finland's airspace affected the mood here in Finland?

SN: We have a long history with Russia — not that peaceful all the time. So everything Russians are doing, surely the Finns notice and think very carefully what that might mean.

WP: This country was successful in staying non-aligned during the entirety of the Cold War. You say we're at the gates of a new Cold War. The way this new Cold War evolves, is it possible to be non-aligned? Or is this a situation where you have to choose sides?

SN: We are not part of NATO. But we are part of the European Union and part of the West. I would answer your question by explaining how we see our security at the moment. It's a balance. We still have conscription. We have a strong army. It's 250,000 men.

WP: A lot smaller than Russia's army.

SN: But 250,000 men is something you have to at least take notice of. We are increasing our defense budget. We are cooperating with Sweden very deeply and that is developing very fast. We are advanced partners of NATO. And in the end I like to mention the E.U. dimension. We all know according to the Lisbon Treaty we have given a guarantee that we will help member states if they face severe problems.

WP: But that's not the same sort of ironclad guarantee that is Article 5 under NATO.

SN: No, it's not the same kind of guarantee. But it's nevertheless a very strong political statement

WP: Ukraine has paid a huge price for leaning toward the West but not being protected under Article 5.

SN: They were not members of the E.U. A big part of the problem Ukraine faces is due to their own inability to build up a democratic society. That is a huge problem. If you look at Finland, things are totally otherwise, so you can't make any comparison to Ukraine.

WP: The prime minister has been outspoken in saying he'd like to pursue NATO membership.

SN: No one so far made a clear proposal. It hasn't been discussed, surely not decided. The question is: When? I think our prime minister has expressed, like many other NATO supporters here in Finland, that now is not the correct time.

It is very obvious that if Finland joins NATO, that would undoubtedly harm our relations [with Russia]. You have to keep in mind that 1,300 kilometers is a long, long border, and you just don't keep it closed. On the contrary, it's a living border.

WP: The E.U. sanctions that Finland is a part of, and Russian counter-sanctions, are they having an impact on the Finnish economy?

SN: The sanctions themselves and the counter-sanctions, if you just look at what impact they have had, it surely isn't a very big one. But the sanctions mean that the business environment gets cautious. That has meant a weakening ruble. That has meant weakening GDP [for Russia]. That has meant the purchasing power of ordinary people has been eroded, and that has meant something for Finnish exports and not as many Russian tourists coming to do their weekly shopping in Finland.

WP: Before you came into office, you were considered more pro-NATO.

SN: Surely I'm not against NATO. I see that as a possibility. It has to be an open choice and that is important, because it is also part of our balance.

WP: The prime minister has been quoted as saying Finland should have joined NATO 20 years ago. Do you agree with that?

SN: It would have been a very easy step. Russia was very weak at that time.

WP: Do you think that was a missed opportunity?

SN: It was an opportunity, undoubtedly.



Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja

The Washington Post: How do you regard Russian violations of Finnish airspace this summer?

Tuomioja: We have a 1,300-kilometer border between Russia and Finland. From our point of view, but also from a Russian point of view, it's the most stable and least problematic frontier they have, and I believe they want to keep it that way as long as they have no reason to believe that the Finnish territory would be used for hostile action. That's the basis of our position since the second World War.

WP: But obviously across Europe, we've seen an increase in these sorts of incidents. What message is Russia trying to send?

ET: Generally, of course, it's sending a message of power politics, that they have military powers, that they have nuclear weapons, but even then you have to recognize that Russian military power today, even with their far-reaching powers, is far from what was the case in Soviet times.

WP: Has Russian behavior caused Finland to reconsider its own policies?

ET: There is a debate going on in Finland about NATO. What has happened is that those people who have always been for NATO membership have found more arguments for this. But those people who have been against NATO membership have also found more arguments. So it is sort of a polarization of opinion more than any shift.

WP: And your own position?

ET: My position has been against NATO membership. We are the one country that has not run down conscription or defense in our country, unlike many others that are now trying to take back what they have done.

WP: Do you think NATO membership is going to be an issue in the election this coming spring?

ET: I don't think so, because no party has interest in doing so. The Conservative Party and the Swedish Party are very much in favor of NATO membership. But the electorate is not, so they are not going to win if they do it. And neither are we, the Social Democrats, going to make this into a bigger issue.

Yes, people are concerned: Is this the return to the Cold War? I have never experienced any previous elections where there is so much interest in security and foreign policy. If I am at a meeting where I speak half about foreign policy and security and the other half about internal politics and economics, the discussion will mostly be about the first, nothing about internal politics.

WP: Does Finland have a role to play in being a channel of communications between [Russia and the West]?

ET: We are not offering ourselves as any kind of mediators. We are members of the European Union and we don't divert from E.U. policy.

WP: But you do talk with Russia.

ET: We do talk with Russia. We don't discuss sanctions, E.U. issues. But we do discuss Ukraine. We do discuss everything that is going on in the world, and if there's something we can do to facilitate solutions, putting an end to this conflict, of course we are always ready.

WP: When there are the violations, as there were this summer, what has your message been to [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov?

ET: We say this: We have the evidence and this is unacceptable. Can you see to it that this is not repeated? I think the Russian foreign ministry is not party to this. They are more embarrassed by this, including Lavrov himself.
In interviews, Finland's leaders see peril in standoff between Russia and the West - The Washington Post
This should help you to understand Indo Pak relations, unless of course you are being obtuse for the sake of being obtusely provocative:
SN: We have a long history with Russia — not that peaceful all the time. So everything Russians are doing, surely the Finns notice and think very carefully what that might mean.
For "We" read 'India' and for 'Russia' read 'Pakistan'.

I don't think I could be more clear.
 

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

I am sure you know about Karelia and what Mannerheim did and what it is now.

Surely, you could have peace with Russia and not have the issues as below



Now, things are happening at Ukraine.

So, why can't you constructive ideas to normalize your relations with Russia? ;)
Those articles are exaggerating things here, while there are some violations of airspace they are still in the "mild" bracket. British and Finnish yellow media wants some headlines. Nobody here feel threatened by Russia, and why should we? They can attack Crimea or East Ukraine and face some amateur militia and regular soldiers with questionable morale. Here they will face 350 000 highly trained, armed and motivated soldiers. Why hit the "hard" target, when there is plenty of "soft" targets available.
 

brational

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,223
Likes
2,644
Country flag
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

Those articles are exaggerating things here, while there are some violations of airspace they are still in the "mild" bracket. British and Finnish yellow media wants some headlines. Nobody here feel threatened by Russia, and why should we? They can attack Crimea or East Ukraine and face some amateur militia and regular soldiers with questionable morale. Here they will face 350 000 highly trained, armed and motivated soldiers. Why hit the "hard" target, when there is plenty of "soft" targets available.
Why making fool of yourself? Oh sorry, is it like being modern, educated and intellect?
 

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

Why making fool of yourself? Oh sorry, is it like being modern, educated and intellect?
Ok, maybe soldiers morale was high but training, tactics and equipment were lacking. Sorry.
 

brational

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,223
Likes
2,644
Country flag
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

Ok, maybe soldiers morale was high but training, tactics and equipment were lacking. Sorry.
Your theory says, countries with poor military training, tactics and equipment should accept the slavery. They have no right to be independent and sovereign. On the other-way, powerful nations must invade other countries.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,312
Country flag
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

@jouni The last time our prime minister visited pakistan for peace, the pakistani army waged a war against India, read Kargil.

Lahore Declaration

The relations between the two nations were completely transformed at the outbreak of the Kargil War in May 1999, following the sudden revelation that Pakistani soldiers had infiltrated into Indian Kashmir;[13][14] the Indian Army was deployed to evict the Pakistan army soldiers and retake capture the disputed territory.[13] The two-month-long conflict claimed the lives of hundreds of soldiers on both sides and brought both nations close to full-scale war and possible nuclear conflict.[6][9] After this conflict, the "Lahore Treaty" was stalled and no further discussions took place between the two countries on promoting the dialogue and CBMs initiated at Lahore in February 1999.[9]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

Your theory says, countries with poor military training, tactics and equipment should accept the slavery. They have no right to be independent and sovereign. On the other-way, powerful nations must invade other countries.
What slavery are you talking about: NO, Ukraine should not accept slavery under Russia. But their position is weak, 25 years quasi-independent with Russian influence on all works of life, makes it difficult to be strong.
 

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

@jouni The last time our prime minister visited pakistan for peace, the pakistani army waged a war against India, read Kargil.

Lahore Declaration
If you had all the power, what would you do to normalize your relations with Pakistan?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brational

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,223
Likes
2,644
Country flag
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

What slavery are you talking about: NO, Ukraine should not accept slavery under Russia. But their position is weak, 25 years quasi-independent with Russian influence on all works of life, makes it difficult to be strong.
I am done with you. I am finding it difficult to understand your views.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,312
Country flag
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

If you had all the power, what would you do to normalize your relations with Pakistan?
The pakistani army stands in the way of peace between our countries. They have a notoriety of coups and putting civilian leadership in the gallows. You may have heard the saying for pakistan, " a lot of countries have an army, but pakistan's army has a country".

To stay relavant, they need an issue, and that issue is Kashmir, if it settled then their army looses power and relevance.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
Re: India should use resources to fight against poverty, not against P

If you had all the power, what would you do to normalize your relations with Pakistan?
Let me answer this question. When I can go to Pakistan freely on a sight seeing tour without feeling threatened (or blown up) then I shall consider relations are normalized.

Many Indian PMs have tried - literally everything in the book - and have failed.

Even Indian diplomatic staff finds it very hard to live in Islamabad, the capital, you forget about smaller nondescript places.
@jouni - you should live in Pakistan and then go sight seeing. If you come back in one piece then you tell me the tale.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top