»
Discussion
»
pipTalk Lounge
»
Pakistan/India Conflict
| pipTalk Lounge |
|
Pakistan/India Conflict |
|
PoetryIsLife 
since 2001-10-27
Posts 1763...in my boxers... 
|
Has anyone bee following this situation lately? With this most recent rejection [of a proposal/declaration of the need to talk concerning Kashmir (sp?)], it seems quite plausible conflict could arise, fairly soon. Pakistan has gone to the measure of moving their troops from Afghanistan's borders, which will hurt the US. Brought to the Table by Titus. Delivered fresh, daily.  Every second that passes you are one second older. You'll never get that second back. [This message has been edited by PoetryIsLife (05-29-2002 02:17 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Daniel Redding - All Rights Reserved | |||
Marshalzu
since 2001-02-15
Posts 2681Lurking |
Maybe the US should send some more troops to fill the gaps in the borders and do the job properly. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Maybe the UK should stop drawing lines in the sand or at least take responsibility for what they did. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I know this ain't amusing to some, but it does kinda crack me up. Kashmir is divided into three pieces, not two. But I don't reckon either Pakistan or India want to tangle with em. Want to guess who has the other piece of the pie? |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
quote: Brad, The Kashmir problem was, I admit, an indirect consequence of partition, Kasmir, as I understand it, was one of 500 ‘princely states’, each given the choice of ascension to either Pakistan or India. Of the 500 only 3 posed any real problems, of those two had Muslim Princes but a majority Hindu population, both hesitated but finally decided to join India, which left only Kashmir. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir turned to India for military assistance when armed Muslims invaded the principality. India promised free elections after the incursion was redressed but Pakistan, worried that no such event would take place, began a military and political campaign. The UN (not the UK) brought about a cease-fire and produced the lines in the sand that divided Kashmir. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
And now the conflict worsens...what will happen if they use nuclear weapons? How can they think that killing millions of people will help their cause? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Phaedrus, Fair enough but I don't think it's a coincidence (and you don't seem to either)that in three different parts of the world (Israel/Palestine; Kashmir; and N. Ireland) -- lines were drawn on predominantly religious grounds and the result is terrorism. There are other areas to explore, of course -- Sri Lanka and Indonesia/East Timor come to mind -- but at the moment, I think we have to seriously rethink the way we drew the world in the first part of the twentieth century. I don't know how to start doing that without first going back and realizing that that's what we did. Self-determination doesn't solve the problem, it reinforces it. |
||
|
Phaedrus Member
since 2002-01-26
Posts 180 |
Poet deVine quote: If by ‘cause’ you mean the claim to Kashmir then it won’t help either side but that won’t be the reason nuclear weapons will be used, if indeed they are used at all. A rapid escalation of the conflict will take place if hostilities continue, if in such a case one of the combatants gains conventional military superiority over the other the losing side may very well choose ‘death before dishonour’ and play the nuclear card. You have to remember that nuclear weapons were designed for exactly such situations – to end wars, Kashmir is, in the eyes of the potential protagonists, a good reason to have a war, each step towards it is a step closer to the possibility of nuclear weapons use. The reason will be self preservation not territorial gain. If you want to look at the ethics that would drive such a use you need to examine the ethics of similar hypothetical situations that are on differing scales. Is it ethically correct to kill 1 person to save 10? Most people would agree that it is. Is it ethically correct to kill 100 people to save 1000? Now it’s a little harder to decide but the answer must be the same as the first, the only difference in the questions is one of scale. Is it ethically correct to kill 10,000 people to save 100,000? Judging by the previous two answers most people would be pushing red buttons at this point. Brad, I believe those lines are drawn on difference not specifically religious grounds, sometimes the lines are drawn even before the differences emerge, take the case of Korea and the 38th parallel, where it could be argued that the line drawn created the difference. The ideal would be a world without borders but human nature precludes this, even on the individual level we tend towards territorial behaviour requiring, and if necessary, defending our own space. Sharon has posted a prime example of this in the piece about a colleague at work searching through her desk and filing cabinets. If you require another think about your home, how far into your home would let a complete stranger? The odds are they wouldn’t get past the front door, what about a slight acquaintance? Maybe the kitchen or the main living area, would you let either into your bedroom? The problem in Kashmir is that both parties believe the area is their main bedroom and the opposition forces, defined by difference, are complete strangers. Thanks for the chance to read and reply |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Okay, but why do we or why did we focus on the difference between ethnicity and religion and not the difference between the bedroom and the public sphere? You say it's human nature, I say this distinction was historically produced. Now, by that, I'm not saying that it was historically produced from nothing -- ethnic and religious differences are just as 'real' as distinctions between bedrooms and soccer stadiums (I've got the world cup bug). But we, as humans, are appalled when someone is killed at a football match; we are not (or at least not as appalled) when a criminal is killed in the process of committing a crime. I have no solution of course except that we need to change our focus from one to the other. As you already know, I think the tool to begin this shift is Liberalism. Often enough, you read something about the historical differences between opposing sides but often enough when two sides are at peace (Few talk about the Filipino/American war for example.). We don't talk about Sherman's path of destruction in the American South? The history books are there, but we don't use them. If it were human nature, why is this so? ---------------------- Quick note: I think the ethical questions you ask are worth discussing in Philosophy (which usually just means, I can muddy them up a bit.) Alicat, Haven't had time to check that. Don't suppose you want to save me the trouble? Gotta go, Brad PS I'm learning a lot from this thread. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Sure thing. From a recent map I saw, Kashmir is divided into the Pakistani part, Indian part...and Chinese part. And if they do start fighting (not the nukes though) and get too close to the Chinese Kashmir, it could be Korea* all over again. *referring to incident where U.S. servicemen got close, but didn't go over Chinese/Korean border. They were swarmed by hundreds of thousands of Chinese and taken prisoner. Many were never returned. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
