Now a war between India and Pakistan...

[Pedro Pablo Laracuente]

The thing is getting worse.

Do you think that all these events could lead to a third world war?

Anyway here is what the news say about the army of both countries:

India/Pakistan

Soldiers: 1,263,000/535,000

Reserve: 535,000/513,000

Tanks: 3,414/2,300

Artillery: 4,175/1,467

Aircraft: 738/353

Helicopters: 22/(blank)

Aircraft carriers: 1/(blank)

Submarines: 16/10

Nuclear Weapons: 60-90/near 12

As we can see India has the advantage.

Any thoughts, comments, etc?

Over and out

[Guest $iLk]

Personally I'd like to see them get it over with. I doubt India will do anything though. They will probably try to do what Israel is doing to Palestine, but I'm betting the Pakistani's won't have anything to do with that and do something stupid and get their ass whipped.

I'm doubting it'll go nuclear, but if so, here's hoping it thins out some of the idiots over there.

[Supreme Cmdr]

I think we should just go in and disarm them both

[Guest $iLk]

Or we could just threaten to nuke them if they nuke each other...

[Guest]

It wont happen, specially not with US forces so damn close and with so much internationall attention in the region.

BTW, dont think that because a country is outnumbered and outgunned it wont get into a fight.

Just look at Ecuador and Peru in the 90's. They almost slugged it out over a stupid 50 mile piece of swampland, and Peru had 8X the Ecuadorian military forces.

Here's a damn good synopsis of it:

Ecuador : Rumble in the Jungle

What do you get when you have a border that no one can see and changes like a baking loaf of bread? And with hot heads baking it? Why, Equador and Peru, of course. Ecuador and Peru fought a war over this 1000-mile-long swamp in the Amazon basin back in 1941 and they haven't forgotten about it. In fact, they duked it out again in 1981 and almost came to blows yet another time in 1991. There was even a bullet pinball game in early 1994.

This time it's over a 50-mile stretch in the lush, jungle-covered mountains of Cordillera del Condor that would give Equador access to the Amazon and Maranon rivers-if they had it. Although no one seems to be able to prove it, the area is supposedly rich in gold deposits. Just the rumor alone is apparently enough to raise rifles.

The Protocol of Rio de Janeiro was signed in 1942 to end that first war, but Ecuador later said "screw you" after getting their hands on one of the world's first portable calculators and realizing the ramifications of losing half their territory-nearly 77,220 square miles, to Peru. The problem with the Rio Pact was that it defined part of the border between the two countries as "the river flowing into the Santiago River." Well, there are two rivers flowing into the Santiago River. Sprinkle some gold between the two and you've got a good fight. Even though Pope John Paul II has issued a call to both countries to stop the fighting, no one's listening."

This was taken from a GREAT site

http://www.comebackalive.com

Look up India and Pakistan there. Good info

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Tac ]

[Hunted]

yea i gotta go with the sc on this one...this so freaking ridiculous that the mind set of most of the countries in those regions still date back to mesopotamia!...this is ridiculous....THAT IS WHY MOST "MODERN" COUNTRIES SEPARATED CHURCH AND STATE SO WE DON"T GET CRAP LIKE THIS!! it's mind boggling!

[Fendi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:

yea i gotta go with the sc on this one...this so freaking ridiculous that the mind set of most of the countries in those regions still date back to mesopotamia!...this is ridiculous....THAT IS WHY MOST "MODERN" COUNTRIES SEPARATED CHURCH AND STATE SO WE DON"T GET CRAP LIKE THIS!! it's mind boggling!

---

Be careful what you say JJ, $ilk and Menchise are watching....

[Hunted]

lol they both know i'm right.....

[Fendi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:

lol they both know i'm right.....

---

*Slowly moving away from JJ*

Um good luck kiddo....you'll need it.

I've been stung too many times by them two. I'd better stick to what I know best......

[Hunted]

lol i?"ve usually stuck outta the political discussions, but trust me..this one..I GOT THIS!

[Supreme Cmdr]

JJ, see if this flame-retardent jacket fits. You'll be needing it.

/me handing over worn out jacket to a puzzled JJ

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tac:

Look up India and Pakistan there. Good info

---

LMAO!!! I like this entry in the Pakistan section.

I mean, after all, what politician wants to go down as the ass who got half his country destroyed in an afternoon?

[Guest]

The great thing about that site chief is that what they say is 90% true. What they say about my country is so incredibly accurate that it made me think this guy had actually lived there for 10 years or more.

"The guerrillas are indeed talking peace, but are blowing away people at the same time.

And they're doing both very effectively.

And humanely, according to FARC leader Manuel Marulanda, who recently issued Colombian motorists a neat little safety tip: drive at least 500 meters behind any military vehicle, on any road. You won't find that in any AAA manual."

So amazingly TRUE. Read the whole entry on the country, they even have the history and the common point of views of the people RIGHT. Im truly amazed. If I ever win the lotto and plan on traveling, im reading up on this site first

[Hunted]

they haven't responded yet...proving that i am right....(yea i know i'm asking for it)

[Fendi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:

they haven't responded yet...proving that i am right....(yea i know i'm asking for it)

---

Bye JJ, you have always been one of my favourite posters. Um when Menchise and $ilk gets to you, would you leave your P4 with me?

[Hunted]

LOL NO WAY IN HELL FENDI!

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fendi:

Bye JJ, you have always been one of my favourite posters. Um when Menchise and $ilk gets to you, would you leave your P4 with me?

---

LMAO!!!

[Guest $iLk]

Well ... WEll.... WELL...!!!

JJ my boy... *Appears to grow menacing and becomes a sillouette against the light.

Anyway I just got online, haven't been on for awhile, so I'd like to touch on that point from my perspective.

quote:

---

yea i gotta go with the sc on this one...this so freaking ridiculous that the mind set of most of the countries in those regions still date back to mesopotamia!...this is ridiculous....THAT IS WHY MOST "MODERN" COUNTRIES SEPARATED CHURCH AND STATE SO WE DON"T GET CRAP LIKE THIS!! it's mind boggling!

---

Actually I'm not so rabid on this issue as I am on most others, but I'd like to give my thoughts on the so-called "separation" of church and state.

I fail to see a constitutional requirement for forbidding either the teachings of Judeo-Christian morality (which aren't just religious) or forbidding the displays of religious items in our public schools, government offices etc.

Rather than coin the term "It says "in God we trust" on our currency" I would like to go in-depth on this one.

First of all, let's look at the first ammendment and how it applies to this "alleged" crime.

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the free exercise therof;

or abridging the freedom of speech or of press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

---

First of all, this means that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In addition congress can make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

In other words, Congress has no power to set rules either way. Any laws for or against religion in public schools, the government, etc are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The separation of church and state implies that church is outside of the state's juristiction, not that religion must be expunged from our government.

If our president, congress, etc. want to display religious symbols, ideas, etc., it is not the governments place to step in and stop it OR encourage it. Religion is (according to the constitution) immune from law. That basically sums it up. Any legislative agreement that forces schools to remove religious items, or allows people to be sued for "offending" someone are unconstitutional. The fact they exist is one more example that our country is moving towards removing culture in order to embrace socialism - cue Menchise

In stating your opinion on the matter JJ, frankly I agree in a sense that, the civilized world at least FOLLOWS the morality of their religion, instead of ignoring it for animal lusts for power.

The USA does not separate church and state, it has no juristiction. Church is beyond control of the state. The state cannot deny the church nor respect it's existence. Any member of our government is free to hold his own beliefs, and to share his beliefs, but cannot legislate his religion's establishment.

The countries in the Middle East quite often IGNORE their religion's morality, and use only the state. They are truly separating church and state, instead of listening to the morality that Islam is supposed to teach. It's a different morality than ours, but it's better than the way they act.

So I'm not gonna bite your head off in this argument JJ, just toss my opinion up in the air, hopefully enlightening you on a broader aspect of the situation.

Cheers

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I've been stung too many times by them two. I'd better stick to what I know best......

---

Once bitten, twice shy aye?

Fendi, I respect your intentions, and your feelings on the matters. The fact that your intentions sometimes border into ridiculous assumptions (as mine sometimes flare up into asenine assumptions ) is no reason to be afraid to have a healthy debate. Your heart is in the right place, our debates are simply to help educate people on what actions to put their faith into. The racial profiling thread was one of the more ambiguous threads I've started (and the only one I wasn't 100% confident my argument would win the day). I started it more as a learning experience, and I agree with your position in the thread halfway, and disagree with mine halfway.

I don't believe either my extreme or yours (see the ACLU thread to see what I compared yours to ) is the correct action to take. Some kind of compromise must be made there. I don't believe racial profiling would be effective EVERYWHERE. But I don't believe it should be prohibited from where it would do some good (namely the airport situation) JJ feel free to read back on the 400 paragraph posts I type to see what our arguments are like

And let me know what you think of my position on the church and state thing.

Fendi I hope to see you continue in our debates, because quite often, your pessimism may turn out to be the voice of reason

I look forward to seeing everyone who comes in the future.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

First of all, this means that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In addition congress can make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

In other words, Congress has no power to set rules either way. Any laws for or against religion in public schools, the government, etc are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The separation of church and state implies that church is outside of the state's juristiction, not that religion must be expunged from our government.

---

It depends greatly on the way that religion is being expressed. I don't really have a problem with religion in public schools as long as freedom of expression is consistent. For example, I have no problem with allowing prayer in public schools or for people to express religious tradition within them as long as that school does not prescribe itself (and therefore its students) to any one religion or to a need for a religion, otherwise it starts alienating people, which contradicts with the whole purpose of having public schools.

quote:

---

If our president, congress, etc. want to display religious symbols, ideas, etc., it is not the governments place to step in and stop it OR encourage it. Religion is (according to the constitution) immune from law.

---

Not necessarily. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with members of congress displaying religious symbols on their person when they're in session, but if the president or congress decided to put a great big crucifix on the front of the Capitol building, it would be a violation of the first amendment, because that display is sending the message that only Christian Americans are represented in the House of Representatives.

quote:

---

The fact they exist is one more example that our country is moving towards removing culture in order to embrace socialism - cue Menchise

---

Hmm...I could join another debate (which would make it 4 this month) about culture and socialism, or I could play BCM. Another debate ... BCM ... another debate ... BCM. You know what, I think I'm gonna stay out of this topic and have fun somewhere else, if you don't mind.

[Guest $iLk]

LOL, okay Menchise, just going to throw why I think you're wrong, and then I'll say goodnight, maybe if you want to reply you can start our SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE THREAD.

quote:

---

It depends greatly on the way that religion is being expressed. I don't really have a problem with religion in public schools as long as freedom of expression is consistent. For example, I have no problem with allowing prayer in public schools or for people to express religious tradition within them as long as that school does not prescribe itself (and therefore its students) to any one religion or to a need for a religion, otherwise it starts alienating people, which contradicts with the whole purpose of having public schools.

---

Agreed, so long as the school does not specifically state that only one religion is permitted. If a school teacher wants to start a christian club, no problem with that. If someone wants to start a Muslim club, let them knock themselves out.

The fact that a majority of the students don't go to their club, but go to the christian club instead shouldn't deter them, nor give them reason to sue for being "left out".

quote:

---

Not necessarily. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with members of congress displaying religious symbols on their person when they're in session, but if the president or congress decided to put a great big crucifix on the front of the Capitol building, it would be a violation of the first amendment, because that display is sending the message that only Christian Americans are represented in the House of Representatives.

---

I don't believe it's a violation of the first ammendment, considering no LAW was passed. That's the difference. I think that ANY school or government building should be able to display whatever they want. Because the 1st ammendment doesn't "prohibit the free exercise thereof" i.e. if someone feels left out because someone else is displaying their religious stuff - TOUGH.

They can sacrifice their virgin goats or have intercourse with sheep all they want to, so long as it's legal under the law. I wouldn't feel left out if I went to a school and a majority of the students were jews or muslims. I would simply exercise my own religion. Same goes for them. They can excercise their own all they want to, if they feel left out - THEN BECOME A CHRISTIAN. If they don't wanna do that, tough.

People need to have thick skin, they don't need Big Brother government coming in to take care of their every little problem in the world.

"Don't worry if you can't find a job, BIG BROTHER loves you and will gladly tax those EVIL REPUBLICANS/CORPORATIONS/RICH PEOPLE and give you a free handout."

"Don't worry if those christians at that christian school are bothering you, we'll just forbid them from worshipping since a whole 1% of the students were "left-out"

Gimme a break.

Anyway, what was this thread about? Oh yeah - NUKE EM! We need to try out some more of this high tech $hit we have anyway, what I've seen so far looks cool, I wanna see more!

If it leads to World War III, the survivors will simply write about how ironic it was that two crappy countries ignited a world war. It's not gonna come to that however. The world powers don't support the middle eastern countries on the opposing side anyway. Our major enemies wouldn't give a damn if India and Pakistan got it over with.

Anyway... night everybody

JJ, comments?

[Guest]

As far as I am concerned, India and Pakistan can blow them selves to $%#@ for all I care.

If they are going to be dumb enough to attack each other, and dumb enough to do it, then they deserve what they get!!

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Nuclear Weapons: 60-90/near 12

As we can see India has the advantage.

---

I'm sorry, this really ANNOYS ME TO NO END.

As we can see, they are on EQUAL FOOTING. If they both have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out most of the other, it really doesnt matter about who has the most aircraft, soldiers, etc, because one nuclear weapon can wipe them out. Who has the most nukes doesnt matter, since India and Pakistan could both easily be wiped out by that number of nuclear weapons (if not from the explosion, the radiation/fallout)

Nuclear weapons arent big guns, boys and girls, they go off, you have a nice little hell. The large superiority that India has over Pakistan in conventional troops, heightens the danger in the area. India gets cocky, attacks Pakistan, Pakistan nukes them. Hey, if I was Pakistan, I sure would. I'm not going to let the people in India (who I greatly hate/despise), capture me and my country. Rather us both die than them win. (pushes the little red button marked LAUNCH)

[Pedro Pablo Laracuente]

quote:

---

As we can see, they are on EQUAL FOOTING. If they both have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out most of the other, it really doesnt matter about who has the most aircraft, soldiers, etc, because one nuclear weapon can wipe them out. Who has the most nukes doesnt matter, since India and Pakistan could both easily be wiped out by that number of nuclear weapons (if not from the explosion, the radiation/fallout)

---

I agree there, but do you guys think it'll go nuclear instantly? And it is if they are foolidh enough to blow themeselves.

[hazzig]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

As far as I am concerned, India and Pakistan can blow them selves to $%#@ for all I care.

If they are going to be dumb enough to attack each other, and dumb enough to do it, then they deserve what they get!!

---

As far as I can see its not something private between Pakistan and India. Radiation and fallout won┬┤t stick within their borders. Imagine the big brother in the east if they get some raining over their heads. If India/Pakistan push the red button, they probably do it more than once.