Nick_76This shows a massive ignorance. Just look at a recent post on the PAF thread about new insructors for UAEAF and the number of PAF and Pak Army personnel on deputation to these countries. Do you seriously think that none of them have a say in purchasing weapons systems?
ROTFLMAO, do you think these mercs have ANY SAY in deciding UAEAFs strategic policy?
I suggest you take do visit Acig.org and “edumacate” yourself on the realities of decision making in the Gulf States.
They need personnel. They dont let your boys run the strategic show. Theres a difference, please dont get confused.
Saudi and UAE practuically supplied FREE OIL to Pakistan for 5 years after the nuke tests!
I already mentioned it, and noted that practise has been stopped. No free lunch for ever.
Saudi and UAE have even bankrolled arms for Pakistan. If that is “not giving a fig” then I really hope they carry on not giving a fig for Pakistan!
Yes, bankrolled part of the acquisition of some obsolete Mirages & sponsored the nuke program. But funnily enough, you are still living in the past.
Talk of today.
Why do you think the French adopt a passively pro Arab foreign policy!? For their love of Camels or for the massive Arab arms purchases.
Where is the massive French Pro-Pak policy?
PAF personel flying Mirage F-1s, Mirage 2000s, manning Leclerc tanks.
I would not be suprised if teh Marlin sale is actually Arab finaced with a view to getting these subs in Arab service with Pak help and training.
Right. And how many Leclercs are in PAF service? How many Block 60’s are flying in PAF colors? How many F-15S’s and E-3 AWACS are Pak flown and serviced & in Pak colors?
Please dont delude yourself. They support you to some minor degree, yes. But nowhere near the levels you allude to and desire.
Pakistans defence establishment and teh Gulf are tied at teh hip, any military historian of the sub continent will be aware of this.
Yup, stillborn Siamese twins. Lets not kid ourselves. In the most recent conflict, 1999, the Gulf did squat to help Pakistan.
The era of a handful of Sabres from friendly Gulf states is gone.
Get a grip on stratigic reality. France has been selling arms to Pakistan for 40 years and to India for even longer. Despite India being a bigger. Its not stopped.
We werent talking of France sonnyboy, we were talking of Sweden and the Erieye.
Get a grip on reality, you tend to ramble all over the place. :rolleyes:
Nick_76Order was always going to be between 3-6 subs dunderhead. Was probably cut to 3 due to Pak budget, not out of some respect for the mighty Bhrarat.
Ah, moron, but I thought the Pak budget was infinite as I was led to believe in the other thread by all your premature exultation about 6 Marlins and 3 Agostas! Oh, how things change!
Sorry to shatter any illusions of greatness, but India needs the west much more then the west needs India when it comes to military tech.
As regards “needing the west more”- why it pays to read, we are not talking of cutting off the west. The competitors are Israel, France, US, UK, Germany, Russia & Sweden (heh!)
Without outside help no “indigenous” project would have got off the ground.
LOL, but who’s argueing about “indigenous” here- without COTS products made by a handful of firms, no project whether the EF or Rafale can take off. So take your silly analogies & attempts to incite a raise elsewhere- I mean do try and not be so blatant will you! :rolleyes:
Also, you mention “future” potential orders. In teh recent past Pakistan has actually signed and purchased the following from France.
NAVY
3 Mine Hunters
3 Agosta Subs
Undisclosed Exocets
Upgradto Atalntics (5 aircraft)
Mistral MAPADS (300 units)ARMY
30 Eucerial Helicopters
Optics for Al KhalidAir Force
Mirage 3/5 ROSE upgrade Programe (80 aircraft)
Avionics for F-7 and JF-17
You realise how limited the above list is? Its pretty small compared to what India has purchased already from France! Should I put the list up?
Lets see- AF alone –
– Master T radars, 3D AESA
– Upgrades for all its THD 1955 radars with TOT to BEL
– 10 Mirage 2000 H’/THs
– Avionics for all its upgrades (40 Jaguars + 40 MiG27s, plus more on the way) plus license manufactured 140 Su-30 MKIs
– French Munitions especially LGBs
-Engines for all its ALH helicopters plus codeveloping the next series Ardiden for its ALH Mk2. HAL producing ALHs @ 50/ Year
– Upgrading its Cheetah & Chetak helicopters
-EW equipment
The same extends across all 3 fields old boy, its pointless. Larger country, more spending power, more buying power. Its that simple.
In addition to this future prgrammes France may well picth for include
MICA for JF-17, Marlin for Pak Navy, Tiger for Pak Army
Dude, in terms of money even a couple of the ones I mentioned *earlier* would equal the ones you have mentioned! Please dont kid yourself- the scale between the two is extremely lopsided. And by all accounts, its only going to get worse.
Whats amusing is that you are quoting individual units- I mean, Mica for JF-17 (AMRAAM went south I guess!) but anyways- the current 50 odd Mirage 2000 H/THs in IAF service are slated to be upgraded. Practically a done deal, MLU after all. Do consider what that would come with. This is what I meant- the scale is simply lopsided.
It may actually seem although India often promises the world, Pak is a quietly loyal customer.
Ah, the usual “we buy” they dont. Would be nice. But for the reverse. At any given time, India has hundreds of acquisitions projects going through (looked through the stated figures recently?) and the numbers cleared should itself make you think twice before coming to such flawed assertions.
Additionally it would not go down very well in the muslim world (think massive petro dollars) when Pakistan is blocked from getting arms to Indias benefit. Like it or not, thsi equation is certainly considered when the French make decisions on who to sell to.
I dont think the Muslim world gives a fig for Pakistan beyond a point. Need I point out discussions on Pakdef whinging about this very issue? A year or so back, even Tim Hoyt of the US Naval warfare college who interacted with UAE top brass indicated that they had next to no interest in supporting Pak beyond a point. Basically, Pak serves as a useful source of manpower and some “pride” because of its nuclear ability. But beyond that, the Arab world & OIC treats it pretty roughly despite its Muslim status. Even the subsidized oil supplies to Pak are now over from KSA. In fact, in pure economic terms India has a much greater buy in, wrt the Gulf States and India has a huge population of Muslims as well, which the Muslim world is aware of.
Nick_76But it should have been done when the fact of negotiations became known. It is wrong – and sends very bad signals to potential partners – to do nothing for years, while contract negotiations went on, then suddenly start making threats after the contract is signed. Establish a policy, & keep to it. That doesn’t mean applying the same standards to everyone, however desirable it may be, as it isn’t always practical. But neither does it mean buddying up to one supplier regardless of what they sell to Pakistan (e.g Lockmart), & acting on the whim of the moment with regard to another, which is what is being proposed in this case.
Sure, but the fact is that some deals can take India by surprise and it can act later on when it feels that the deal impacts its national security negatively and it cannot be ignored. Some things will occasionally slip under the scanner.
Nick_76I think it all depends on what it is offering and what it isnt , If it is AEW aircraft then obviously it is a big deal and a real force multiplier etc etc There are always going to be situations where where india will have some flex and others where they wont . Sometimes the mere assurity that the enemy or strategic interest will not get equipement which is as sophisticated as you ( like LMA’s pitch of block 70 proposed etc) is enough and othertimes they need a lot more . Should IAF buy gripens just to stop the AEW sale to pakistan ?? Probably not since the MRCA deal for india is much more important and Pakistan can always get AEW from China however should such a tactic of telling them that they can take their arty equipment and run with it be used ? Most likely yes as weapon purchases are the most effective way to exercize strategic power and to form alliances just look at history . If india is unhappy with SAAB selling AEW it will and should most definately effect it , however if Sukhoi sells PAKFA to china (hypothetical) then india doesnt have all that power other then to slowly loose the reliability on russian technology and companies . Foreign weapons sales are all matters of playing hardball and political and strategic hardball is something that is played very feircly and countries usually jump on a opp. to flex their muscles whenever they can.
Exactly.
Point 1 (in bold)
If Russia is supplying Mi-17s to Pak….hmmmmm….lets see, 10 Mi-17s…not a bother. 100 Mi-17’s- uh, oh- that could enhance tac airlift by a bothersome level, ok lets talk with the Russians.
Point 2 (in bold)
Reference China, India’s greatest advantage is that China and Russia are neighbours. Hence, beyond a point, what China often gets is carefully considered in Russia and only then released. Of course, this does not stop Russia from selling “defensive systems” which can be a huge PITA to India- S300PMU1’s and 2’s or components for Chinese eqpt which can be used offensively against India (Al-31 FNs for J-10) to some extent.
Nick_76A bit of both. Why do u think DCN has gone ahead with their decision to export Marlin (French govt approved it) to Pakistan. Could it be anything to do with India’s decision not to go for M2K-5?
Sorry, I dont think those are related. I’ll tell you why- look at the order numbers. Its been reduced from 6 which Pak was ostensibly looking for, to 3. So the French are selling arms, but they do appear to be looking towards Indian reaction. Secondly, look at recent reports-
– 126 MRCA deal, Rafale a competitor (EF, F-18/16, MiG-35, Gripen competitors)
– BDL ‘s future missile system- Aster a competitor (Israel with more Baraks, Russia with Antey)
– Future ATGMs- INDAN planned (Israel with SPIKE, GILL)
– India’s Nuke market, AREVA looking for deals to build N-reactors (GE Westinghouse comp from US)
– India’s Nuke market- fuel supply and Tech transfer (Australian companies, US)
– India currently negotiating a deal for missile technology for LACMs (Israel, Russia)
– Indian Armys multiple projects for EW, Surveillance (Israel, Russia, now Germany)
– IAFs multiple upgrade projects (same as above, include Sweden)
– Eurocopter pitching for future projects for Navys choppers, IAFs medium lift chopper (Bell, MiL)
– Future Submarine project, follow on to Scorpene- (with Amur, HDW competitors)
Plus India purchased a Guppy load of Airbuses recently, splitting it between Boeing and Airbus
{Thanks to the excellent senior posters @ BR- it took me ten minutes of searching through the discussions to come across just these deals in news reports, and I am sure I missed many more.}
So now you tell me, does this in anyway compare towhat Pak is offering? In every one of these there are other competitors which India can harken to. Even a couple of these would recompense France sufficiently. So I wouldnt look at India getting “punished”, just yet. Theres too much at stake for France.
No doubt India would and could apply such tactics in any way they feel like. I am not arguing with your basic point. However, as you have cited Denel’s examples, this could only be done for a relatively short period of time. These companies would be under no obligation to observed any conditions once India stops buying from them for whatever reason.
That was only because Denel got caught in graft investigations in India! If these had not occurred, the scenario would have continued.
In fact, with this being raised, theres a possibility that the CBI once it gives an all clear (if it does), Denel might be reinstated and the purchases dusted off. As you can see, this was merely a domestic issue which accidentally led to this. Otherwise as “Proof of concept”- it worked excellently!
Lastly, the companies WILL have to sign legal agreements agreeing to NOT sell what they are selling to India to Pak. Even for a short period of time, these things can be used devastatingly.
Suppose Pak needs AAMs. Will it wait for ever? If A- Darters are not available, it spends its Capex on PL-9s and Aim-9M’s. This, is to Indias advantage.
In effect, India forced Paks hand into acquisitions which pose it less of a threat.
‘Free and Fair Competition Laws’ were just an assumption. In a democratic country like India and after various scandals involving military purchases, i simply assumed that any deals would have to be transparent and come under ‘fair trading laws’. I can’t imagine any company to bow out of a deal with Pakistan under Indian pressure unless the latter has some guaranteed sweetners. OTOH would India be able to offer sweetners without transparent competition?
Fair trading laws now include strategic concerns, so as you can imagine, these will be fair (since the law states them to be so) and cannot be challenged in court. Or if they indeed are, they will be thrown out.
Lastly, of course there are sweeteners– access to the Indian market (Civil + Military) itself is a sweetener. How many countries today routinely buy on the scale of India – not bragging, but its a growing economy and a billion strong country, over 6*the size of Pak, and hence it requires huge amounts of goods and services, which by its own laws, it can specify who or what is competent to apply for.
After all, Chinese companies cant apply to set up Missile lines in India can they? They might be cheaper and even met some Indian requirements if not all, but they will never be issued the RFPs! That is India’s choice to make.
And it can clearly intimate a country that a deal is open, but sorry its specific company cannot compete since that company does have significant business with pakistan.
Of course, if the company offers an amazing deal in return it might still get through- but what India is doing is what many others have done and continue to do so. Its hardly unique.
In fact, I would say India is finally showing some signs of maturity, in coming up with a formalized procurements guideline in using such Multi billion $ contracts to further its strategic objectives!!!
Nick_76I suspect that nuance will be rather lost to most nations China deals with Swerve. Its plain and simple power politics, its raw-est form. That China is public with its demarches further reinforces that notion.
The point is that China – for its reasons- does not want Taiwan to import arms of sophisticated capability, ethics, issues of sovereignty & Chinas own behaviour being not germaine here- it pursues its national interest vigorously.
As regards 2-3 cases of US intervening heres the deal-
The US State Dept has arms transfers from Israel earmarked- Israel has to notify them-especially when the kit involves American components-
The US intervened and blocked the Phalcon sale to India and finally gave way (claims are that Israel used sensor fusion software derived from proprietary US stuff supplied to it and that the radome is from Raytheon, there was some grumbling over the Popeye, but it was sold (tho’ not the max range version, the MTCR etc also came in I guess) and there had been statements to the effect that even the Python 4/5s used US kit, so India needed permission from them.
The Arrow is still blocked.
Nick_76I agree with this, and bring it on has further clarified it. Whereas there is no harm in trying, in my opinion such a policy (in world wide implementation) can only succeed with either massive political influence and/or financial sweetners. A company like Saab/Ericcson would only break such a deal if those sweetners come with full guarantee and not mere promises…for them to recover their financial losses as well as damage to reputation. OTOH if India decides to sign lucrative deals with Saab/Ericcson, that would mean jeapordising their own free and fair competition laws.
In my personal opinion, this sort of ploicy has a far greater chance of success if applied selectively.
About your points in bold:
Where are these free and fair competition laws. In the latest DPP it quite clearly mentions that strategic concerns can influence decision making. And they do so in many countries. So if the law of the land or procurement procedure is clear in this respect, thats that.
Well if India were to have SAAB/ Ericsson break off- it can do so in two ways:
– By showing the stick if it doesnt comply and no carrot
– By showing the stick if it doesnt comply and offering carrots if it does
Either could be used.
The authors mention sticks. Usually a combination of the two (Carrot & stick) works best.
Nick_76Nick
I agree with most of your above mentioned points. However, some of them Require further elaboration.
India signed a contract for 6 Scorpenes. Few months after DCN/France have offered Marlin to Pakistan with full ToT…may be something to do with Indian decision to walk away from M2K-5 deal. What should India do in this regard.
Vikas, I dont understand you- are you saying this was done (offering a statement of fact), or are you asking an opinion?
Please specify, then we can go ahead.
While such pressure points always exist, coupling them with carrots can send the wrong signal. Whereas US with her political/financial clout can exercise such options rather freely, India does not have such a standing as yet. Such tactics can send the wrong signal to other companies/countries and they may use certain tactics of their own. OTOH, if India does decides to apply such tactics only selectively, i can’t imagine it to be doing any good to her world wide reputation.
I seriously dont think it will impinge India’s reputation (which is already one of hard negotiations & extensive TOT requirements, which place it in its niche).
India is currently in a “cold war” situation wrt Pakistan, and hostilities are but a beck and call away, without going into politics. In that case, its only fair to assume that India will do what it must. Theres no issue of “standing” here.
China routinely publically demands countries to stop ties with Taiwan (military)- and is explicit about it. If India for that matter tells its RFP providers that A) You should not supply the same thing to Pak or B) You should not deal with Pak or C) If you comply, here are the sweeteners or D) If you dont, this is what will happen.
As you can see depending on A)B)C)D) you can have various permutation combinations regarding the same.
Sometimes, A) will be applied. LM is applying for the MRCA contract. Its good for India they do so, they drive down the other vendors prices. Plus LM has the power of the USG behind it. OTOH, say a Ukrainian firm wants to tie up with India for its new ERA (no offence intended to Ukrainian members on AFM, Just an example)- India says Ok, but break off ALL ties with Pakistan. In turn we give you this coproduction deal as well as we fund next generation equipment.
Whether hypocritical or not is not the question. Of course it will be nuanced.
Of course it is logical. But i think its also logical to assume that such a policy has the potential to backfire. Unless India keeps buying from Russians, who would stop Russia from selling to Pakistan? Same can be said of every other company/country.
Which is why I said different strokes for different folks.
India cannot and should not engage EVERY country. Its not economical nor is it required.
But by engaging with a handful of countries who provide certain capabilities, India can impact Pakistan a lot. By engaging with South Africa, India locked Pakistan out of (for a period of time) its prime source of high end avionics & PGMs during a critical time. (Post nuke sanctions)
For instance, if India does try this with Sweden and (say) it succeeds, who else would supply AEW & C equipment to Pakistan? Only the US would be left, and of course China. And as we have seen, the US too does not want certain capabilities to be handed over (DRFM case), though things could change. Pakistan cannot develop AEW&C equipment on its own, this limits it to a handful of suppliers and any vagaries there can impact it a lot.
IMO, this course of action is indeed prudent for India.
Nick_76Very True. However, the difference between US and India is obvious to most. Whereas US could exert such influence/pressure (considering the close links between US & Japan), does India enjoy similar links with Sweden or similar clout as US over world politics? For argument sake lets suppose, India manages to damage this deal by a combination of pressure & sweetners. Wouldn’t this provide incentive to every other company to follow the suite, and would India be able to keep up with the pace? Didn’t Russia threaten to sell to Pakistan unless India looked after their strategic interests? Would and could India be willing to accomodate everyone’s strategic interests just so they wouldn’t sell to Pakistan?
India can try! And theres nothing stopping it from doing so.
The US has a list of companies and organizations it routinely puts on its proscribed list if they dont match US law (sold stuff to Iran, off you go! Sold stuff to China, off you go)- but it does not let this impede its other trade activities.
In this case, Ericcson and SAAB could be locked out of many Indian deals. (If they comply, sweeteners). But other Swedish companies would still be treated fairly.
All in all, different strokes for different folks. What you mentioned about Russia is unique to Russia. After all, its similarly obvious, how much TOT Russia normally provides to India & the level of codevelopment, not to mention existing Russian equipment. Thats not the case with (say) all other countries!
And even here, if we notice- the combination of buying power and strategic interests do matter. India & France are close to signing a missile deal for technology, this is not available to Pakistan. Obviously, its not going out of altruism, but because India has a huge market opportunity for Dassault/ EADS/ MBDA and AREVA (N- reactors).
Nick_76Sure but those standards must also be applied to other companies working , like the ones that swerve and myself mentioned .
Why? India will seek to influence those it can and those it cant, it cant. Why this insistence on some kind of “Fair play” when it comes to pursueing ones strategic interests? Do you think the US treats all NATO members at the same level as it does the UK? Why are ABCA more equal than equal when it comes to sharing technology & access?
Face it, the US gets away with a lot of stuff because its the US (its sum total of economic and military power), why should it surprise you that other countries should try the same to the best of their more limited abilities?
Nick_76Given that everyone has a right to speak his/her mind, no one should be screaming but asking legitimate questions. For example, the author says Our security set-up should have the spunk to tell Ericsson: “Cancel the defence deal that compromises with our security or pack up and leave.” Is this how capitalism in 21st century meant to work? As others have mentioned above, would the author then be willing to encourage his security set up to treat every other company that deals with Pakistan in a similar manner? And is this the bect way to go about it?
Vikas
Good questions- and if you’d notice I dont consider you to be amongst the other two jokers, but never mind- let me address the issue.
1. Every nation practise real politics with respect to defence- the aim, as you’d know is to maximise its own benefits whilst denying them to its enemy/opponent.
2. In India’s case, it clearly cannot afford to alienate EVERY company or country. However, it can play tough and extract concessions. In this case, we should also see if there are any prior rules in India wrt the above.
3. A few years back, India stated the rule that whosoever supplied equipment to it, would not resupply the same elsewhere and that defence deals would now factor in strategic aspects, not just price (lowest bidder which meets the service requirements).
4. Ericcsson is currently bidding for many Indian projects. If the Indian Govt so chooses, it can squeeze Ericcsson but I wouldnt presume that it would slam Sweden totally. The effect of this of course, is conjecture.
5. Sweden is currently bidding for a massive Arty contract in India, which would basically sustain Celsius. That is in addition to the above civvie street projects.
So “potential pressure points” do exist. The question is of course- what will India seek if it does apply the pressure. I would say that if its smart it would not just apply pressure, it might couple it with carrots- ie Bofors may well swing the deal, Ericcson wouldnt get plastered & so on.
There is of course, as Swerve noted- no ethics in this.
Can India get away with such pressure on “everyone”? No. But it can and could attempt to make life more difficult for Pakistan wrt certain nations if it chooses to.
I would give the example of South Africa. By effectively involving Denel in a 400 piece SPHowitzer program and giving it the contract to actively set up ammunition factories in India, Denels ties with Pak were severely curtailed – the SA Def Min announced cessation of ties at an Indian defence fair (as you’d know Denel supplied several items to Pak prior to this, including ASMs). Recent disclosures have revealed that the Indian side expressly cultivated South Africa for the same with a carrot and stick policy.
Of course, with the current blacklist on Denel- things may well change- but it does serve as an example of arms deals.
Similarly, if you see Ukrainian media- there are comments that their ties with India have locked them out of the Indian market, their choice to make.
Thats about it.
As you can see- its logical & I would be very surprised if anyone expected India to NOT do something similar. It will pursue its interests. And surely Erieyes in Pak hands are not amongst them?
Nick_76No need to scream, he will have his rant like you do, and all will be forgotton. The world will continue to do business at both Indias expense and often to Indias benefit! So what!? Crying about Erieye deal will not stop it.
Who’s screaming here, whos crying? Your spelling mistakes indicate you are typing faster than you can handle- somewhat frenzied eh? :p
Take the towel and wipe your tears Yasser. If your lot behave like good ‘ittle boys – the Erieyes may well arrive. No need to worry.
Yet. :p :diablo:
Nick_76I am relaxed, if people where to compare yoru frenzied posts, often bordering on religous and racial hatred, you would see who needs to chill.
Care to point out where old chap? Lying is all too well- but it doesnt get you much ahead. All it does is show you to be a liar.
Your frenzied posts on PDF etc, are quite remarkable- I can pull them out in spades if you wish Yasser. Careful there old chap- smoke and mirrors are best left to Siegfried & Roy, you are not in their class, though one must admit, you do try. :rolleyes:
India may not even have an AWACs by 2010, by which time PAF Erieyes will have been in the air for 3 years.
Yes, anything else this evening? This from the same gentleman who is yet to enlighten us with all his claims of AMRAAMs on JF-17s & the PAFs extensive experience in this arena. Why? Because CAC of China integrated some western kit (VOR/ILS, HUDs) on F-7s!
Surely man, there must be a limit to braggadacio and how not to continuously paint yourself into a corner with your jingoism?
Once again- please answer the prior questions. Dont weasel out!
I am waiting to rlelax and see reports flooding in in the next few years about “integration problems” in Isreal with the IL-27 and the Phalcon.
Ah. Another illuminating post. IL-27? My my, and I thought that was in WW2! :p
Will the Il-27 come with La-5’s you reckon?
Of course, there will be “integration problems”, “teething troubles”- the whole world has them with new equipment, but its only Pakistan, with its strictly controlled media which seems to escape these issues.
Why Pakistan with its martial, spick and span state of the art (Greenday1: “they commit havoc in the electromagnetic spectrum”)
equipment, avoids ALL such issues.
Its MAGIC. Amazing!
Of course, I need only post one negative comment on IAF na dnot only will I get you, but teh rest of the goon show throwing around personal insults. Get you house in order before suggesting others to chill…….
“Goon show” and then he says “personal insults”.
The irony of it all dwarfs me!
But where did negative comments on the IAF come from?
We were discussing India attempting to block an Erieye sale.
So chill & have a pint.
Nick_76Hmm.. this is what the stodgy Economic Times, print edition, auth. Rajesh Kalra, says in its 14 September Edition-
Typing it out, so all spelling mistakes etc are mone
Titled:
“Their commerce versus our security”.
Ericsson is a big player in the Indian telecom segment and has huge earnings from its network infrastructure and switching contracts.
Telecom is a strategically critical sector, but I still admit that security is often used as a bogey to scuttle genuine and much- needed developmental initiatives. But that does not seem to be the case here. Here it is clearly a matter of a company that makes billions of dollars from us, legitimately, and then sells sophisticated equipment that can be used against us, to a nation that is openly hostile towards us.
We should ask them, without flinching to revisit their decision. If the company turns around and says it is their commercial decision, we should turn around and tell them that their commercial interests cannot override our security interests. Our security set-up should have the spunk to tell Ericsson: “Cancel the defence deal that compromises with our security or pack up and leave.”
Will you scream at this author too, old feller for speaking his mind?
Nick_76My dear chap, I merely have two posts on the matter thinking about ways it could be so. But it got you & Pack. rather excitable!
About the reality check, I think you need a good look in the mirror- I am still awaiting your reply to the questions you weaselled out of replying on the other thread- should I post them here for you to tell us about the long awaited answers?
Surely, the mere mention of a neighbour with better economic & other military contracts trying to achieve its strategic objectives should not get you so worked up! What India does is after all, India’s prerogative and should not be confused with Paks! No harm in discussing it either.
Have a pint & relax.
Sign In
