India-Pakistan: Jammu-Kashmir
The beautiful state of Jammu & Kashmir is comprised of many regions and people. It is located in the north of both India and Pakistan. Pakistan was originally a part of India. In 1947, when the British left India, Muslims wanted a country of their own. As the two states were formed, more than 12 million Hindu (India) and Muslim (Pakistan) refugees crossed the India-Pakistan borders in a mass transferal. About 200,000 were killed in communal fighting.
According to the instruments of partition of India, the rulers of princely states were given a choice to accede to either India or Pakistan. They were to consider geographical and ethnic issues. In Kashmir, the ruler, the Maharajah hesitated. The principally Muslim population saw the early and covert arrival of Indian troops. They rebelled and things got out of the Maharajah’s hands. The people of Kashmir demanded to join Pakistan. The Maharajah, fearing warfare, gave way to Indian pressure and agreed to join India by “signing” the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947. It stipulated that India would claim this region if ratified by a plebiscite. That was in 1947. No plebiscite has ever been held. Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim region has remained in dispute since 1947. After heavy and nearly continuous fighting, a cease-fire was negotiated by the UN on Jan. 1, 1949; it gave Pakistan control of one-third of the area, in the west and northwest, and India the remaining two-thirds, the region of Jammu & Kashmir. In the 1990s repeated clashes between Indian army troops and pro-independence demonstrators were triggered by India’s decision to impose government rule. This led to renewed heavy fighting. The area remains unsettled. It is worth noting that both India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons.
THE QUESTION BEFORE THE CONFERENCE WILL BE:
Should the conflict in Jammu-Kashmir be resolved by
a. Establishing Pakistan’s sovereignty over the region?
b. Establishing India’s sovereignty over the region?
c. Establishing Jammu-Kashmir as an independent, sovereign state?
India-Pakistan: Jammu-Kashmir
Competing claims to this beautiful, rugged land found in the northern region of India. This area borders the countries of Pakistan, China, and India.
The Jammu Kashmir region should be given to India, because Pakistan is a very unstable country. In fact, the US government says it is the most likely nation to have a revolution. If indeed Jammu Kashmir was controlled by Pakistan, groups such as the Taliban and Al-Quaeda would rush to the region, making them have easier access to India.
ReplyDeletePakistan would like to point out that under Indian control, there have been massive amounts of human rights violations. Furthermore, Kashmir was taken from Pakistan by India. It is rightfully ours. And the population is more Muslim than Hindu.
ReplyDeleteIn reponse to Mr. Gibson's charge that under Indian control Kashmir has had "massive amounts of human rights violations"... Well, sadly, I don't think that Pakistan has a much better record. Considering that Pakistan has currently given up part of its state to the Taliban, Pakistan has enough on its own plate and therefore India which is much more stable should control all of Kashmir.
ReplyDeleteIndia may still rebel against China as it seems to pose a threat to their aims to own Jammu-Kashmir. Five principles may not be enough to cover the eye for an eye policy that China leans towards. It seems that they have alreay blinded China with the geography of the toy globes they are selling and the appropriation of border land. India continues to fight blind in an attempt to follow their own best interest when it comes to Tibet.
ReplyDeleteChina recognizes the rights of Palestine (with which it has friendly relations) and yet, disapproves of the Palestine leader's alleged pro-terrorist outlook and denies the intent of the leader to stand in the way of Palestinian reform, part of the peace roadmap.
ReplyDeleteTobiah, I would like to see where your getting that info on the Pakistan->Taliban exchanges. (Good for the extemp box). But until I see that, I have no reason to believe that, considering the Pakistani government has pledged to fight terrorism on their Afghani border. Specifically it is the Pakistani government's best interest to suppress this militarization, as it's often seen that the Pakistani gov. is collaborating with the west, and as such, must be taken down. Militants work daily to undermine the governments authority, and it is so that I do believe that your facts are contrary to reality with Pakistan being so lenient in regards to the Taliban.
ReplyDeleteNow moreover, I feel that there is in there is reason to believe that possible militant aggression will decrease with Jammu-Kasmir under Pakistani control. The Pakistani military is under constant alert and training to essentially liberate Jammu-Kashmir from Indian totalitarianism, with the knowledge that a full scale war could be induced. Because of this massive amounts of Pakistani troops are committed to this region, which drains the possible numbers of troops that could be sent to combat militants on the Afghan border. J-K in Pakistani control could allow them to redirect some of their troops from J-K to the more volatile Afghan border.
I now stand to here some of that PDM-LD derived logic that will show me why Indian control is best.
It is interesting to note that there is a parallel between the Pakistan-India and the North-South Korean conflicts. The British power is to India as the US forces are to Korea. In both situations, there is a dispute over territory, and both conflicts are technically countries at war.
ReplyDeleteNorth Korea is developing nuclear weapons and Pakistan has already done so. So it should be a heads up to South Korea if Pakistan launches.
But to be honest, South Korea doesn't really care about what's happening between India and Pakistan. South Korea is focused on the issues that directly pertain to them. But they probably would agree with India, because of similar situations and the fact that S.K. exports cars to India.
The US will not get involved in the Kashmir conflict, but has recently offered to help both India and Pakistan to build more trust and confidence. The United States, under the administration of President Barack Obama, prefers constructive diplomacy to ease the tension between India and Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteMr. KeizerSoze,
ReplyDeleteIf you have been reading NYTimes, BBC, or the Economist in the last few months then I am sure you know what I am talking about regarding the Taliban and Pakistan exchanges. Actually there exists this place called Swat Valley in Pakistan and it under Taliban control. The Pakistani military gave it up to the Taliban. Recently a Taliban spokesperson invited Osama bin Laden to Swat Valley to seek refuge. A country that can't keep its own boarders closed shouldn't be allowed to control the contested area of J-K.
If the J-K issue is resolved then the militarization on the boarder will decrease hugely between India and Pakistan. What I am saying is that India is better suited to take over J-K than Pakistan.
There is your PDM-LD logic! Bring it!
Now, I could never follow up what Tobiah has to say, but I can try.
ReplyDeleteI think that given the problems in Jammu-Kashmir, it should be made an independent state, free of either Indian or Pakistani control, also adding a buffer between Pakistan and India to help put space between them and their constant bickering.
While mostly unconcerned by this, the Philippines believe that Jammu-Kashmir should be part of India as Pakistan is rather unstable and the Philippines fear that there could be terrorist actions within the country. Jammu-Kashmir would be better suited to India.
ReplyDeleteWell, the United Kingdom isn't very involved in this, but because it involves the chance of nuclear weapons, we're wide open, so I guess I might as well let things be known.
ReplyDeleteReally, it makes more sense to give the state of Kashmir to India. Making Kashmir its own individual state is much too risky. Independence would just make it easier to conquer, and therefore, we would just be in the same boat again, pointing missiles at each other, and that wouldn't solve anything.
I also agree that the Pakistani control is unpredictable, and likely to be unable to control Kashmir.
So, as much as we'd like to stay out of it, the United Kingdom is more apt to rule in India's favor, rather than Pakistan's or the Independence.
Toby, when I said I don't know what your talking about with the Pakistani government "giving" sections of Pakistan away, I, in essence, still remain right. The government balks at the idea of Talibani control in Pakistan, the problem is the military is apathetic about removing them. In Pakistan, the military essentially has the last say, and they aren't rushing to eliminate the Talian for two main reasons. One, they are focused on the Indian oppressors and the possible battle on the plains of Punjab. Second they don't take the Talibani plague that's infiltrating the swat valley that seriously because the Pakistani military views the Talbian as if they are fighting against a corrupt, innaficiant government that's a puppet of the west. Essentially what Musharef was following 2001. If the U.S. can atually buy major credibility with the people of Pakistan, as well as the Pakistani control of J-K ending the 60 years of gridlock, peace can come to the region.
ReplyDeleteBesides, as I said, the military is in control of Pakistan. What about the possibility that the moment control is handed over to India, Pakistan enters into it's endgame? Do you want that on your conscious Toby?
I thought it was my job to be heartless. But way to go, we can just say goodbye to the city of Dehli.
KeizerSoze, I am sorry to say but you are kinda' shooting yourself in the foot. You're saying that the Pakistani government balks at "giving" away Swat Valley to the Taliban but then you say later that the Pakistani military has "essentially the last say" so I feel like India needs to deal with Pakistan's military not Pakistan's government. Then you say that the Pakistani's view the Taliban as an "inefficient government" that is "a puppet of the west." Really? The Taliban as a puppet of the West? Considering the U.S. is the quintessences of the West and we are bombing and fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Taliban are no puppet of the West.
ReplyDeleteReally now, Pakistan isn't the only one with nukes. I have a slightly feeling though that Pakistan's "endgame" could end up coming off slightly North Koreaish. I just hope Islamabad knows that. Besides, Russia isn't too far away. There is always the possibility of a little "accident."
All in all, J-K must go to India in order to create stability in the region and between the two nations. Besides, you didn't refute any of my points of why India was in a better position to take of J-K. :-)
Okay, sorry, got back from a 1500/3000 and my proofreading went out the window, sorry. I was refering to the corrupt Zarzai government and the fact that many parts of the Pakistani military supports the fight.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Pakistan is well aware of Indian nuclear capability, but in Muslim society many aren't afraid to die because they believe in Martyrdom and the idea that their life is planned by Allah, so death is not something to be afraid of. This belief is not a comforting thought, so are you really going to risk the deaths of millions so you can keep one of the only muslim majority provinces in India?
Now, India is not ready to accept J-K because the militarization will NOT stop if India is given control of J-K. In contrast, the militarization will only increase. There are already hundreds of thousands of Indian troops in J-K with the sole purpose of subduing a population which is responding to 60 years of human rights violations and oppression. So how would having to deal with twice the population reduce militarization? It's counter intuitive. Additionally the Pakistani government won't take that lying down, which results in Pakistani endgame.
China and India are fighting over an area in the east of Jammu-Kashmir called Aksai Chin. Both countries feel like they rightfully own it. China has built a road through the region. This road is very strategically important to China and this gives India even more incentive to gain control.
ReplyDeleteSince Taiwan is essentially under China's control and has almost no international recognition (no one wants to piss China off), Taiwan would really love it if India takes back the region and crippled China's power.
Let's just give Jammu Kashmir to Australia to stop the fighting.
ReplyDeleteIndonesia feels a sense of partisanship with their Muslim brothers and sisters in Pakistan, however it is also very concerned about the fighting in the region.
ReplyDeleteKuwait as well feels a sense of respect for their brothers in Islam but that is where it ends. We see that India is much better suited to rule the area, economically and by stability. Pakistan is much to turbulent and unpredictable. When the "military" starts to care about the Taliban then Kuwait will feel more comfortable. When the "military" is more okay with western ideals, than Kuwait will be more willing to sympathize with Pakistan. Also, Pakistan is acting like if they get J-K than India will just give it up and call it quits, if they fought this long to protect it from your (Pakistani) rule than don't you think they'll fight to get it back. When Pakistan gets its act together and is able to deal with its own internal problems than I think we all will be able to make a much easier and fair agreement between you and India and Kuwait will support you in your need of it, BUT you first must get a hold of yourself.
ReplyDeleteUzbekistan has maintained a good and friendly relationship wiht India. They both support anti-terrorism and they have worked together for a while. Uzbekistan supports India, so they would probably want to establish India's sovereignty over the region.
ReplyDeletePakistan actively supports the Palestinian cause so Palestine most probably supports Pakistan in this issue of Jammu-Kashmir.
ReplyDeleteIsrael actively supports the Indian cause, most likely because Pakistan supports Palestine.
ReplyDeleteUS is really trying not to get caught up in even more conflict. However, as I'm sure everyone is aware of, the whole nuclear weapons potential cold war kind of situation isn't really what anyone wants. The US will try to aid in negotiations, but nothing else. What matters most is that the final solution is peaceful...
ReplyDeleteTo Clarify, because Toby M. is pretty much one of my best friends, and we're debaters, I just wanted to argue with him and that's why I was saying stuff against India.
ReplyDeleteBuuuuutttttt...
Russian Federation supports India and believes wholeheartedly that it should be given complete control of Jammu-Kasmir. Yay India!
¡Gracias Keizer Soze!
ReplyDeleteI think we can work some deal out regarding the Caspian Sea oil. :-) I mean Iran doesn't really sit all too great with us.
Hey, U.S. I understand you don't want to get caught up in another (nuclear) conflict but considering how Obama is conducting drone bombings inside Pakistan and the Taliban's major presence there you are already pretty involved, sorry to say. India thinks you are in a prime position to help us in the peaceful transfer of all the Kashmir to India because Pakistan needs your help against the Taliban. It is in your best interest to have Pakistan give up Kashmir because it would free up their troops on the Line of Control and allow Pakistan to focus whole-heartedly on fighting the Taliban. You agree right? Hope to have your support!
- The newly-elected Indian Pres. (aka Toby)
Kels ((United Kingdom)) [Too lazy to log in]
ReplyDeleteI agree with whoever said that we should just give it to Austrailia.
No, but really, the UK wants it to be given to India. So, there's another vote for you, Toby.
The issue of Jammu-Kashmir is not dry cut in these three solutions, for instance there are parts commonly counted as Kashmir that are actually part of Chinese territory. India has a history of disagreeable behavior against China, so it does not seem like they could be trusted with these areas. At the same time the other options don't seem to be perfect solutions though Pakistan seems to be more in China's interest. Maybe and agreement on these areas could be made.
ReplyDeleteSo we are to believe that China is for the destabilization of the South Asian region, and is a supporter of a state which harbors terrorism?
ReplyDeleteNow now, I do understand that there was a border war in 62', but one has to understand that the Chinese leader at the time, Mao, was virtually insane and had a problem in that he thought the world saw China as week, as meaningless. It's through this misconception that China lashed out at India so they could assume dominance. Many U.S. military advisor's admit that that war was virtually fueled by Chinese aggression, not Indian quote, "disagreeable behavior".
Furthermore it could be said that it would be counter intuitive for China to support a terrorist harboring state, when China itself has had numerous terrorist attacks in some of it's inland provinces, many from Muslim extremists.
This isn't any issue of principle as you seem to be trying to make it, this is about the facts: The Chinese Area of Aksai Chin is being claimed as Kashmir by the Indian government when it is clearly not and is actually south tibet. Pakistan meanwhile does not support any such land grab.
ReplyDeleteIndia
ReplyDeleteTobiah Meinzen
Mr. Diaz
India, Jammu-Kashmir
As of May 2, 2009 the country of India, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports India establishing sovereignty over the region.
In 1947 the British Empire granted India independence. In order to maintain peace in India the British thought they had to partition India, creating the separate country of Pakistan. Pakistan would become an Islamic state in order to guaranty the rights of Muslims. India was majority Hindu. The partition resulted in mass chaos and violence which still has not completely settled and is concentrated in Jammu-Kashmir.
At the time of partition the British told each princely state to choose a country, India or Pakistan. The prince of Jammu-Kashmir did not decide whether or not to join India or Pakistan. Jammu-Kashmir was and still is predominately Muslim, but the prince was Hindu. Since the prince had not decided both India and Pakistan claimed Jammu-Kashmir. The prince though, after it was almost too late to quell the violence decided to join India. This did not resolve the issue.
Military forces from both Pakistan and India rushed into Jammu-Kashmir. Both countries believe it was rightfully theirs. In 1949 after two years of fighting the United Nations arranged a ceasefire. The battle line became the defacto border. The border is now known as the Line or Control or LoC for short.
India and Pakistan continued to maintain a huge military presence on the LoC and fought many skirmishes over it during the past decades. It is believed that near a million Indian and Pakistani troops are stationed along the LoC. Both sides have gone to great lengths to defend their borders including stationing troops on a glacier miles up in the mountains. Tensions have cooled and heated many times. Tensions peaked when in the late 90s both India and Pakistan developed long range nuclear missiles. The threat of a India-Pakistan “Cold War” was real.
Tensions soon started easing, but a peace process has never made it very far. This is often because of the instability of the Pakistani government. Pakistan currently cannot hold its western board with Afghanistan and which has been overrun by Taliban militants. The Taliban signed a peace treaty with Pakistan earlier this year and have control over the Swat Valley region in Pakitan. Pakistan’s military has done very little to stop this invasion even though it has tens if hundreds of thousands of troops amassed on the Indian border.
India believes very strongly that the whole of Jammu-Kashmir must fall under India’s sovereignty. First off, India is much more stable. Secondly, India has a much strong economy than Pakistan. Third, a independent state would be very weak and suseptible to being overrun and becoming a terrorist state. Not to mention the complications that would have with the rights of separatist movements resolution.
When considering this issue one of the first priorities is to ensure the safety of those living in Jammu-Kashmir. Pakistan cannot ensure the safety of those in Jammu-Kashmir. The Taliban have essentially become the government in the Swat Valley. If Pakistan believes their land to be such an important asset then the least they can do is to maintain their own borders. Is Pakistan willing to give up land to the Taliban but not India? If Pakistan can’t take care of the Swat Valley how can they be entrusted with Jammu-Kashmir? The simple answer is that they can’t. With India controlling Jammu-Kashmir, Pakistan will no longer have to maintain a military force on the LoC and can then devote those military resources to fighting the Taliban.
Pakistan is also a Islamic State. India is a secular state even though it has a Hindu majority. Therefore, because of the diversity of Jammu-Kashmir India would be better suited to represent its population over Pakistan. The Pakistani government is only set up for Muslims, not Hindus. India’s government is secular and can work for any religion. Not only can India ensure the safety and stability in the Jammu-Kashmir region that Pakistan cannot India can also deliver a greater economic benefit to the region. India is the second most populous country in the world and can provide valuable jobs, goods, and trade to Jammu-Kashmir that Pakistan cannot. In summary, India’s government is better set up to govern fairly over different religions, India is stable, and India has a stronger economy.
The problem with creating an independent state of Kashmir is the logistics and security of a new state. Jammu-Kashmir already does not have a strong economy and is landlocked. If Jammu-Kashmir were to become an independent state it would rely heavily on the generosity of its neighbours to stay economically afloat. Jammu-Kashmir would be surrounded by three nuclear-armed superpowers whose relationships are not too good. The security of Kashmir would be another huge issue. With the Taliban being able to take over parts of Pakistan, a nuclear-capable country wouldn’t it would be very easy for them to overrun a newly formed Jammu-Kashmir state? In a such volatile area as Jammu-Kashmir a independent state could not survive. Therefore because of the stability India offers it is the best deal for the residents of Jammu-Kashmir.
For if those in Jammu-Kashmir can not be insured security, (and economic stability) it doesn’t matter what their religion is. A dead Muslim is no different than a dead Hindu. Therefore Pakistan has to let go of a fifty-year-old claim if it wants to truly help the people of Jammu-Kashmir. It is no longer about a Muslim homeland, princely states, the Line of Control, or partition. This issue is about the lives of those in living Jammu-Kashmir. So for just this reason alone India should be granted complete sovereignty over Jammu-Kashmir.
To Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteWell, this issue doesn't sound like one that should be a drastic divide between the Chinese and India at the conference, considering the other options.
I'm sure because India is being controlled by very logical, levelheaded people, that they would be willing to work with the Chinese on this issue if the Chinese would be willing to vote on India's side.
Besides, China shouldn't consider giving J-K to Pakistan at the very least because of the Islamic extremist threat that China would have to deal with because extremists now have a clear corridor to the west provinces which have continually had problems with extremists.
China,
ReplyDeleteI know our relationship of J-K might not have been too good at times but we are definitely improving it. I mean you just recently settled a much more complex border issue with Russia and we believe that we are really close to finding a solution to ours.
Therefore just as Keizer stated it would be advantageous for you to have India controlling Kashmir. Especially, because your segment isn't in question it is just between us and Pakistan. Pakistan is unstable and just as with the U.S. and Mexico no one wants to live next to a failed state.
- Indian Pres.
P.S. Thank you Keizer for the compliment - "very logical, levelheaded people" we will try!
As my colleague from Pakistan, Mr. Gibson, has already stated, Pakistan believes that the regions of Jammu & Kashmir should rightly be under Pakistani sovereignty. This predominantly Muslim region has been a victim of numerous human rights violations while under the discriminating rule of the Indian army that is currently occupying the region. Every day these people protest the control of their homes by people who do not care about them. To become part of Pakistan would stabilize the region, and is right for the people. They want to be Pakistani. We say: let them.
ReplyDeletePakistan,
ReplyDeleteYour argument is standing on one leg: Kashmir is predominately Muslim so give it to Pakistan not India. This is exactly the type of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place and has created strife all over the planet. We have to move past 20th century thinking where the only type of country that could function well was a homogeneous one.
The U.S. and India are current examples of countries with a plethora of cultures, religions and ethnic backgrounds, that function well. Besides even the Islamic State of Pakistan isn't homogeneous as you seem to imply. Islam is a huge religion and the violence between Sunni and Shiite can be just as bad as between Muslim and Hindu. (Iraq was a example of that a couple years back.)
Considering that Pakistan is not stable as a country I don't understand how an unstable country can stabilize Kashmir. If Pakistan had a legitimate, and functioning government then I could see validity of Pakistan's claim.
So regarding Pakistan's post above me you stand is support of separatist movements? If so, then are you aware that there are Balochistan separatists in Pakistan. Are you willing to let Balochistan go? If not then you seem to be presenting a double standard.
- Indian Pres.
The United Kingdom point of view is that Jammu kashmir should go to India. It was originally supposed to go to India because that is where the leader wanted it. it is a muslim majority population though. that is why there is so much fighting.
ReplyDeleteI personally thing that jammu kashmir should become it's own state so neither India or Pakistan can have it and so there would not be any more fighting over it.
*mouth drops*
ReplyDeleteOh my gosh, Toby. That paper is huuuuuuuuge.
India
ReplyDeleteChris Collis
Duncan
As of Monday, May 4th, 2009. India, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports India getting the region.
The Kashmir region has always belonged to India, and it should stay that way. We have many citizens who are afraid and upset by the constant threat of the Pakistanis. When the British granted our glorious nation independence, they gave us the region, not Pakistan. Pakistan has always had a problem securing and defining their borders, and now they are practically run by organizations such as the Taliban and Al-Quida. If they cannot keep their own borders safe from this threat, what is to stop them from pouring through Kashmir and making strikes at India, China, and the rest of south East Asia?
The Eurasian Conference should solve this issue with great hast, due to the fact that both sides posses Nuclear capabilities, India posses nukes while Pakistan is unknown. The British, who were the ones that graciously granted us independence, decided that India should get the region. Pakistan could not hold onto their own eastern region, and are having enough trouble holding onto their own borders as it is, why give them this new trouble when India is much more capable of handling it. As for it becoming it’s own country, no. Either Pakistan, or India would over run it’s borders and the whole argument would resume again.
RUSSIA
ReplyDeleteHALLE SHIRK (co-President)
HAMMONS
As of Tuesday, May 5th, 2009, Russia, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports India for sovereignty of the region.
Over the years, many deaths have been attributed to the conflicts in the Jammu Kashmir region and recently, over 34 people have died as a result of self-destructive revolts. As of 1947, the territory has been disputed between Pakistan and India due to the partitioning of the land after the removal of British regime. Russia is much aggrieved to see such needless fighting between neighbors, brothers, parents, children, and friends. No longer can the fight continue as it endangers the region, it’s surrounding borders (including that of Russia itself), and all those who wish to travel through Jammu-Kashmir. Russia believes that the situation should be resolved in favor of India as Pakistan has yet to prove capable of governing its own allotted land without the threat of terrorists (namely the Taliban), and it seems unwise to provide any more reason for chaos on its borders. The dispute should be settled bilaterally and in accordance to the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration. These two treaties represent the peaceful manner in which this situation can and must be resolved.
In light of our position on this issue, Russia recommends that plan b; establishing India as sovereign over the region is put into effect immediately. No longer can the world stand by and watch as Jammu-Kashmir destroys itself and any hope it has of a future. The conference must act swiftly and decisively to put the area back on its feet. By giving control of the region to India, we ensure that a productive and stable government turns the land into a booming center of culture and tradition. Perhaps, once Jammu-Kashmir has recovered from this brutal and self-destructive war it can decide to fend for itself at which point it should take its plea to the Indian government and the rest of the world as it embarks on the journey to self-determination. However, it would appear that this is away into the future for Jammu-Kashmir at the moment. The Conference’s main priority should be to stop the fighting and to provide a sound beginning to the future of Jammu-Kashmir as the newest addition to the economically strong, independent, and culturally diverse India.
burn like a fire
ReplyDeleteBoy oh boy Toby... Youre making it really hard for me to take Kashmir for Pakistan and still exude minimal effort for the conference, which was my plan all along... Good luck. That was a good paper. I'll have a response up Wednesday night.
ReplyDeleteCharley Gibson, Pakistan
United Kingdom
ReplyDeleteKarina Mann
Diaz
United Kingdom
Jammu-Kashmir
As of 5/5/09, the country of the United Kingdom, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports India having Jammu-Kashmir in its country.
The issue affects my country because it had previous control over it. The land of Jammu and Kashmir was originally given to India by the British. We believe that the power should stay that way and still be under India rule. We think that the Line of Control should turn into the border line between India and Pakistan. That would leave India in control of Jammu-Kashmir.
During the Eurasian Conference we would convince anyone that India should have Jammu-Kashmir. It was originally India’s to begin with and should remain so. Another reason why Jammu-Kashmir should be under India control is that it would end the war between both countries because it would be rightly given to India. Since the United Kingdom is one of the more powerful forces in the Conference we would likely line up with the U.S. and other countries who supported our reasons. Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India for it originally belonged to them and should stay without change or war.
Germany
ReplyDeleteDonovan Rubio
Lawless
As of Tuesday, May 5, 2009, Germany, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports India.
All areas of Kashmir are disputed and Germany would like for India and Pakistan to take steps toward peace. Kashmir should be treated like any other part of India and both the people and governments are needed to resolve this issue. There is an ongoing cycle of violence and abuses toward human rights in the region which needs to be put to an end. Peaceful relations between India and Pakistan are needed to insure a stable environment for the people affected.
Pakistan has been going on a reign of terror and has been purposely occupying these areas, defying the rights given to the people living there. They are forcing their way into the region by force or giving the people a right to accession in place of self-determination. Germany supports the economic improvement of the people of the region as well as the surrounding areas.
IRAN
ReplyDeleteSETH BATCHELOR
WADE POWELL
Iran Addressing the Issue of Jammu-Kashmir
As of May 6th, 2009 the country of Iran on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports establishing Pakistan’s sovereignty over the region.
Iran and Pakistan share long-standing friendly ties based on cultural, geographical, religious and ethnic commonalities which predate to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Pakistan was the only country in the Arab-Muslim world which took a more just stance toward Iran during the Iraqi-imposed war of the 1980s. Today, the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline is being discussed by all three countries. India consistently communicates through Iran to Pakistan as Iran is friendly with Pakistan and India is not. Due to these previous bonds and current business ties between the two states, Iran will back Pakistan to establish Pakistani rule over the area.
The Eurasian Conference must vote to give Pakistan control over the area to stop the violence and brutality currently reigning over the area. Once a Muslim nation gets control over the area all will be well. Pakistan is perfectly capable of taking control of such a place seeing as how the Iran is their biggest cultural influence. Jammu-Kashmir have already proclaimed that becoming an independent nation is not in their best interests, and if India got control of the mostly Muslim region, the two religions would clash. Pakistan is the clear choice of the three options presented.
JORDAN
ReplyDeleteKATIE GIRARD
DIAZ
Jordan, Jammu-Kashmir: As of Monday, 04 May 2009 the country of Jordan, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports both sides.
Jammu Kashmir is not a real issue in Jordan the only reason it is an issue at all is that it is an issue to everyone. Jordan is a Muslim based country so it would seem that this issue would be important because Pakistan is for the Muslim society, but Jordan also has a large Christian state and the queen of Jordan is American. This topic is being monitored closely by Jordan to see what side it would be better to agree with but at its current place it does not affect them as much so the decision is not final.
Jordan is swaying between the two countries but since in its current position is undecided Im in a position to say that on some days we are on one side and on a different day the next so we will watch what other countries do for sure. We will keep a very close eye on Baraq Obama because he is new in his position.
China
ReplyDeleteLauren O’Shea
Mr. Diaz
China- Jammu-Kashmir
As of May 6, 2009, the country of China, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports neither India nor Pakistan.
China is not siding with India nor is China siding with Pakistan. China is trying to stay neutral because China wants to be on good terms with India and Pakistan. In the 1960’s and the 1970’s China supported Pakistan, but in 1980 China decided to back off from supporting Pakistan and decided to become neutral to have better terms with India. When China was on Pakistan’s side, China and India were not on good terms. China is neutral because they do not want either India or Pakistan as an enemy. China wants this issue to be solved peacefully between India and Pakistan. China wants the issue to be peacefully especially because both India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and if the situation turns dangerous, China would be affected. Also if Pakistan were to use their weapons, there is a possibility that China would get blamed.
We should resolve this issue because if this situation gets out of hand, lives in India and Pakistan would be in danger. Also if nuclear weapons were to be used everyone around India and Pakistan would be in serious danger, the whole area would be wiped out. We should resolve this in a peaceful matter and make sure both sides come to an agreement. If India gets Kashmir, then Pakistan will be angry. If we give Kashmir to Pakistan, India will be mad also. At the conference, we need to find out the right answer to this problem, and try not to make any of the countries mad.
keizersoze be quiet... no one wants to hear your consistently made up liberal as the smelly hippie himself "facts". to clear up... India and china not best buds, kind of hate eachother, pakistan hates india, china hates india, china and pakistan hate india, pakistan agrees w/ china, china agrees with pakistan, not always, but on this issue yes.
ReplyDeleteSAUDI ARABIA
ReplyDeleteKEVAN BENDT
Saudi Arabia adressing the issue of Jammu Kashmir
As of May 6th 2009, Saudi Arabia supports Pakistan over India.
Saudi Arabia having the majority population be Muslim want Pakistan to have Jammu-Kashmir. Because there ethnicity, culture and religion are common, they have similar interest. Plus, India has so much more land than Pakistan.
Vote for Pakistan because we need to stop the violence and prejudice between Pakistan and India. Plus the majority of Jammu-Kashmir is Muslim, and the majority of Pakistan is Muslim. Which would make tensions easier, instead of India coming in with Hindus mixing with Muslims.
Dear China (Lauren),
ReplyDeleteThis issue of Jammu-Kashmir is already "out of hand" as you say and can't be "solved peacefully between India and Pakistan" without your support. Being silent on this issue is not a good idea, that won't help anything. You are going to have to pick a side if you want a solution. You can't just do nothing. India and Pakistan currently have nuclear weapons pointed at each other and the situation isn't going to get any better.
I understand you don't want to step on either of our toes but you are going to have to anger someone when there are two countries with exactly opposite views. (It is just the way of life. You can't have your cake and eat it too, so to say.) You will be stepping on both our toes if you fail to step in and help find a solution. Silence will only worsen the conflict.
India already has the support of Russia, the U.K., Germany, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Taiwan, Philippines, South Korea, and Israel. (That is most of the countries that have posted.) Since India seems to have more support than Pakistan I believe a sweeping vote for India would be less likely to lead to violence than a closely contested one. Along with the fact that Pakistan has less world influence than India, having India as an ally would be a greater asset to you over Pakistan.
Within the next 50 years, India will be the most populous country on the planet and is expanding especially in the IT (information technology) field very rapidly and a India-China relationship will be of the utmost importance to both of us.
Yours sincerely,
Tobiah Meinzen
The President of India
ISRAEL
ReplyDeleteKAYLEE FLICK
JESSE SCOTT
Israel, Jammu-Kashmir
As of May 5, 2009, the country of Israel, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports India
Israel considers the Jammu-Kashmir conflict a very important issue on the world stage because it relates to their conflict with the Palestinians. The country of Israel supports Jammu, because India is a more stable country than Pakistan. India wants to protect Jammu against Kashmir violence, while the Muslims in Kashmir are very indecisive and continue to cause problems, and just want to cause harm towards the Jammu people. Since the United States has chosen not to involve itself with this issue, Israel has decided to follow its ally. Both countries support Jammu, but have decided not to take action and stay out of the whole situation.
The Eurasian conference should support Israel’s approach to stay neutral between the two conflicting areas, however still show approval for the Jammu people. The worlds focus should not be concentrated on one area. If other countries get involved with this issue it will result in more turmoil between the two conflicting regions. Pakistan’s aggressions will be towards the United States and Israel if we deicide to take sides. Choosing a side of the conflict only creates more trouble for the world’s economy.
What's more likely to lead to less violence is to allow the people of Kashmir to escape India's oppressive occupation of their land. For a region that is mainly Muslim, your best solution is to give it to a Hindu country that has a history of brutal human rights abuses? Really? Let's call this what it really is: a power grab for India. Kashmir was never India's, was never meant to be India's (since it is mainly Muslim, it should've been given to Pakistan, and would've, except you coerced the deposed king of Kashmir to cede the land to India), and at the conference, should be given to Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteAnd India is a horrible example of a country that functions well with minorities. Forgetting the caste system, are we? You know, the one where social status is based on skin color? India is an atrocious example of a culture that values diversity.
Pakistan is not an unstable country, nor do the sects of Islam really ever war with each other. Yeah, Iraq is a good example of violence within Islam... Too bad Pakistan isn't run by a lunatic like Hussein.
There's no reason not to give Pakistan control of Kashmir, except to appease the larger country (India).
Charley, as Wiebe would say "Shut up Talibanstan"
ReplyDeleteYou forgot an i, doucher. As I would say, go watch Glenn Beck on Tivo.
ReplyDeleteTURKEY
ReplyDeleteCLAIRE RAMEY
POWELL
Turkey, Jammu-Kashmir
As of May 6, 2009, Turkey, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports Pakistan establishing sovereignty over the region.
While Turkey is deeply saddened by the unnecessary violence and subsequent loss of life in the Jammu-Kashmir region, Turkey supports Pakistan’s right to include this region in its country for many reasons. Turkey believes that in the hands of India, countless human rights violations will continue against Muslims. This is an issue that needs to be resolved immediately because no one wants to have to worry about two counties with nuclear capabilities bickering. Turkey has a strong history of supporting Pakistan diplomatically as well as militarily. They would like to continue in that vein.
For the reasons stated above, Turkey would like to see Option a passed at the conference. Turkey is a country with a predominantly Muslim population. We feel for the Muslims the region who have suffered for years under the Indian occupation. Before the formation of Pakistan, many people voiced concerns that such a country would only encourage more violence and hardship. Unfortunately, they were proven right. The use of Option c would continue this horrible pattern of irresponsibility and Turkey is sure that few are in favor of that. That said, Turkey would like to reiterate that everyone’s highest priorities should be justice, and peace.
Wade, my paper had two paragraphs when I posted it. I promise.
ReplyDeleteDreggman4thewin-Excuse me sir, sir I do believe that you are severly mistaken and unaware of what the actual relationships between states like India, Pakistan and China. It's not as cut and dry as you said, and China does not "hate" India. Their certainly is no joint Pakistani/Chinese effort against India. Furthermore I can explain why India, a prosperous burgeoning state is much better suited to befriend China than the failing, degenerative state that is Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally I feel that you sir, have no idea what you are talking about considering your lack of basic grammar and menial sentence fluency.
Now Mr. Gibson-Well, the partition of India involved the divide of Pakistan based on majority Muslim provinces, however the princely state that was Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to choose which nation they would belong to. They chose India. India broke no treaty or agreement in their control of J-K and as such your argument that "it was never meant to be India's" is moot. Moreover, the caste system wasn't based on skin colour, I question where you came to that understanding. Pakistan is one of the most unstable states on the planet. It literally is carving out it's western border to militant groups because it has lost control. The central government in Pakistan is virtually non existent, Pakistan is ruled by the military and militant warlords. In no way shape or form should this type of state be rewarded with additional territory.
How quaint, the group with the biggest issues of misinformation and falsehoods is accusing the legit, logical group of being so low as to watch Glenn Beck...that is known as a "paradox" my friend.
ReplyDeleteKeizer, look past the fact that Toby is your buddy. Let's just go line by line through your post:
ReplyDelete"Well, the partition of India involved the divide of Pakistan based on majority Muslim provinces, however the princely state that was Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to choose which nation they would belong to. They chose India. India broke no treaty or agreement in their control of J-K and as such your argument that "it was never meant to be India's" is moot."
Just read the paper I'm about to post. Or learn the history of the region. Either way, it's chill. You'll learn the actual history of Kashmir. But just to make it easy on you, Kashmir didn't choose anything. Kashmir's people have NEVER gotten to decide what country they want to be part of. Their was one guy that decided Kashmir should be part of Kashmir, and he was a deposed king which the entire country hated. Furthermore, the dude signed the treaty under extreme duress. Making it invalid.
"Moreover, the caste system wasn't based on skin colour, I question where you came to that understanding."
Well I learned it in class. If you want a link, here you go: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/caste.html... Here's an excerpt: Caste law in India, based originally on race, regulated all aspects of life, including marriage, diet, education, place of residence and occupation.
"Pakistan is one of the most unstable states on the planet. It literally is carving out it's western border to militant groups because it has lost control. The central government in Pakistan is virtually non existent, Pakistan is ruled by the military and militant warlords. In no way shape or form should this type of state be rewarded with additional territory."
Look, even if this is true (and it's misleading as hell anyway, for way too many reasons to list), it doesn't matter. Under Indian rule, there already is human rights violations. There already is oppression. Pakistan at least doesn't infringe on its own people's rights. The people of Kashmir would be far better off under Pakistani rule than Indian.
"How quaint, the group with the biggest issues of misinformation and falsehoods is accusing the legit, logical group of being so low as to watch Glenn Beck...that is known as a "paradox" my friend."
ReplyDeleteFunny thing is... Taylor's my homie. And he hearts Glenn Beck. Like I go to his house and he makes me watch Glenn Beck do his impersonation of Barney Frank. Also, it was a joke. Try to remember, this is a class assignment, not an actual UN conference. No need to get all touchy.
"How quaint, the group with the biggest issues of misinformation and falsehoods is accusing the legit, logical group of being so low as to watch Glenn Beck...that is known as a "paradox" my friend."
ReplyDeleteFunny thing is... Taylor's my homie. And he hearts Glenn Beck. Like I go to his house and he makes me watch Glenn Beck do his impersonation of Barney Frank. Also, it was a joke. Try to remember, this is a class assignment, not an actual UN conference. No need to get all touchy.
PAKISTAN
ReplyDeleteCHARLEY GIBSON
CURTIS
Pakistan - Jammu Kashmir
As of 5/6/09, the country of Pakisant, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports establishing Pakistan’s sovereignty over the region.
The source of most of Pakistan’s longtime conflict with India stems from the conflict over Kashmir. In 1947, conflict between the newly created country of Pakistan and India broke out over who was to control Kashmir. Since Kashmir has a Muslim majority, it should’ve been given to Pakistan under the two-nation theory. Instead, a tyrannical leader, king Maharaja Hari Singh, ceded the nation to India under duress from Indian military officials. Since then, Pakistan has tried to claim the region and protect its people from the human rights oppressions carried out by the Indian occupants. Today, there is an uprising against the Indian government controlling much of Kashmir, since the people of Kashmir will no longer tolerate the oppression against them. In order to stop the violence and give the country that should rightfully control the region, Pakistan stands firmly in favor of establishing Pakistan’s sovereignty over Kashmir.
Pakistan, unfortunately, faces a tough fight at the eurasian conference to gain control of Kashmir. India is a larger and more powerful country, and many countries will be afraid to offend India, even if the most ethical option is to give Pakistan control of what is rightfully theirs. It will be of the utmost importance for countries to protect the Kashmiri people first and foremost, even if it means angering the Indian government. The countries of the conference have a duty to stop the human rights violations that occur regularly under the Indian regime in Pakistan. Whether we like it or not, divisions in any culture divide people and cause oppression. That is why Muslims are treated like second-class citizens by the Indian, Hindu tyrants. The most peaceful solution is for Kashmir to accede to Pakistan. This will in the end not only stop violence in Kashmir, but eventually lead to more amicable relations between India and Pakistan, since their primary source of contention will be a resolved issue.
*If you or your friend was offended by the Glenn Beck comment, I apologize, however I have an issue with anyone that capitalizes on anxiety and paranoia to alienate opinions that don't align with his.
ReplyDeleteHowever Pakistan's points were based around this idea that India "stole" J-K. But the decision still was handled in the way it was set up to be. The ruler of J-K decided to become part of India, and Pakistan violated the terms of it's own partition by engaging in a long bloody conflict. Your ideals of India wronging the terms of the intial agreements are false, Pakistan violated the terms of agreement and one could argue it's because of those actions that India has had to respond so violently. Perhaps if J-K was alowed to be peaceful under Hindu rule, and there wasn't so much additional hatred and xenophobia occuring because of Pakistan's actions, then the region would be much more prosperous.
However, we at North never got a memmo saying that the Caste system was based on race. The linkyou sent me to merely went to the web page of an African nationalist. There was no sources, no way of my knowing that he is right or wrong. However there was a Standford study done in 1995 with genetics that concluded that "the caste system has no coorelation with race". Additionally reasearch sugests that a rudimentary caste system was already in place long before the Aryan's arrived.
Pakistan doesn't infringe on people's rights? Pakistan has issues with women's rights, with political opposition and pervasive amounts of torture. Shortly after 9/11 Pakistan cut a deal with the U.S., saying that for every "terrorist" that was given to the U.S., a bounty would be paid. Thousands were randomly caught and taken with no warrant and subsequently shipped to CIA black sites for these bounties. (See:Taxi to the Dark Side) Pakistan has had enormous amounts of Human rights abuses, please don't pretend to be on a moral high ground.
AZERBAIJAN
ReplyDeleteRACHEL RICHEY
MARILYN CURTIS
As of May 5, 2009, the country of Azerbaijan, on the issue of Jammu/Kashmir,supports the Pakistani postion
The problems in India occupied Jammu Kashmir, include the conditions of the people and their right to have self-determination. The Kashmir people would like to have their independence from India. Azerbaijan supports Pakistans’s view of Kashmir’s independence and would like to help resolve the issue. Pakistan and Azerbaijan have a common interest in the regions of their countrieswhich would like to breakaway. Pakistan’s support of the Karabakh conflict happening in Azerbaijan currently, has helped Azerbaijan to be supportive of Pakistan’s position toward the Kashmir problem. This alliance means Azerbaijan would like the resolution on Kashmir to favor Pakistan’s philosophy. Also with the help of Pakistan and their alliance, Azerbaijan is upgrading its defense systems since Pakistan’s defenses are more sophisticated.
The OIC unanimously approved a resolution in its meeting at a UN session in 2006 to help with the Kashmir situation. The foreign ministers from five countries including Azerbaijan made speeches advocating their support of the struggle for self-determination of the Kashmir people. Some of the measures are: Ending repressive laws, Kashmiris can move freely across the Line of Control, and Kashmiri leadership can meet together to help resolve the situation. This council also advocated that continued dialogue between India and Pakistan is crucial. In another setting, it was stressed that the UN needs to enforce current resolutions regarding Kashmir’s oppression by India. The world watched Kashmir on August 2008, when a large part of the population gathered in a non-violent Ghandi style peace demonstration to show their desire for independence. The UN needs to take a stronger role and the countries in Eurasia can keep the peace talks or dialogue going between India and Pakistan to come to a peaceful resolution.
Pakistan (Mr. Gibson),
ReplyDeleteThis will be a slightly long post so bear with me. KeizerSoze has already rebutted many of your points but I'm going to go through and summarize all the failures in your arguments.
1. Your point is that Jammu-Kashmir is mainly Muslim therefore it should be given to Pakistan.
The Indian government is secular and therefore is built to accommodate multiple religions unlike Pakistan's government which is strictly Islamic. As KeizerSoze said there was no law broken by India durring partition. Believing that J-K should be alloted based solely on its religious demographics is 20th century thinking. We need to get past the era where the only what to allow a country to function peacefully is if it is homogeneous.
2. You say that India wanting Jammu-Kashmir is a power grab. The exact same can be said for Pakistan. Either country can be labeled as just trying to seize more power. Therefore that point is moot.
3. The caste system is illegal in India and your claim that the caste system is racist has already been addressed by KeizerSoze. Besides I thought you were arguing that Jammu-Kashmir should be part of Pakistan because of religious reasons not racial reasons. Please don't get the two confused.
4. "nor do sects of Islam really ever war with each other." I wasn't referring to Iraq when Saddam Hussein was president. I was referring to Iraq a couple years ago when it was on the verge of a civil war between Sunni and Shiite militias. This is what prompted the U.S.'s surge. Sunni and Shiite fight each other, it is a fact. Just look at the Taliban and the Pakistani government. Aren't they both Muslim? (Oh, wait the Pakistani government hasn't really done much, just let the Taliban roll right in.) If your calling Hussein a lunatic what about Pervez Musharraf? Pakistan has had more that its fair share of military dictatorships. Still you seem to believe that a dictator will bring justice about better than a democracy?
5. "Pakistan is not an unstable country," - Within the last couple weeks Taliban militants of pushed within 60 miles of Islamabad and currently patrol (in broad daylight) regions in Buner and the Swat Valley. Also, Pakistan has been led by numerous dictators. Any country that can't hold its own borders and can't regulate its government would be considered unstable by any clear-minded country. At least India can keep militants from taking over part of its country. What happens if you lose Jammu-Kashmir to the Taliban? Please don't say that Jammu-Kashmir under Taliban rule would be better than under Indian rule.
6. "Pakistan doesn't infringe on its own peoples rights," AND "It will be of the utmost importance for countries to protect the Kashmiri people first and foremost,"- Well it depends what you define human rights as. I mean letting the Taliban publicly flog women, destroy their schools (not to mention rape) and put the residents in Swat and Buner in constant fear everyday seems slightly like a human rights violation to me. Yah, maybe Pakistan doesn't infringe upon its own peoples rights---because they have no rights in the first place. It is pretty hard for a government to infringe on someone's rights when the government doesn't even have the ability to protect them, thanks to the Taliban. Pakistan cannot protect the people of Kashmir just as it can't protect the people of the Swat Valley.
7. "even if this [Pakistan's instability] is true (and it's misleading as hell anyway, for way too many reasons to list), it doesn't matter." - Heck yes it does. If we are talking about the welfare of those living in Jammu-Kashmir the stability of the government control J-K matters enormously. India would insure safety and economic stability to Jammu-Kashmir whereas Pakistan wouldn't. You think you can win this whole issue by saying that there was a flaw during partition 50 years ago regardless of the current situation. Well we aren't dealing with 50 years ago we are dealing with today. We have to help the people of Jammu-Kashmir today. Today, Pakistan is unstable and India isn't. That is the reality.
8."it should’ve been given to Pakistan under the two-nation theory" - No, the British plan allowed each princely state to choose a side. The prince of Jammu-Kashmir chose India. Whether or not he spoke for the people of Jammu-Kashmir is beside the point. He was the ruler of Jammu-Kashmir. Arguing the validity of his decision is a completely separate issue. Then again, if you want to disvalue a prince's leadership why not a dictator's. Pakistan has had a couple of those (dictators) remember?
9. "Hindu tyrants" - Any country that has to resort to insulting another country or its people every time it brings the country up is certainly on its last leg. Please cut out the inflammatory language. You're soundly a lot like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and the recent U.N. Racism Conference. Please only bring factual attacks again us not ridiculous insults.
In summary:
Your first point is that Pakistan should have originally gotten Jammu-Kashmir. No, according to the partition established by Britain the princely state had the right to chose. Legally everything was okay no India's side. (Argue the ethics of this decision all you want, it doesn't change the legality of it.)
Secondly, Pakistan would do a better job governing Jammu-Kashmir now than India would. Pakistan is being over run by Islamic extremists and probably without the pressure of the U.S. and its drone bombing campaigns Pakistan would be a failed state ruled by Islamic extremists. Jammu-Kashmir needs a stable leader first and formest. Only one country can provide that–India.
Thanks!
- President of India
Okay anybody trying to argue against Toby or KiezerSoze needs to just stop. I will back up the fact that they are both on the debate team and ues completely factual information. They form their own opinions based off of it that they could back up with possibly hundreds of sources. If you really want to get into these conversations with them, go for it but I sure wouldn't. Just take it into account please
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your support...
ReplyDeletebut what you said isn't exactly relevant, we're just having a spirited discussion.
Definitely agree with you KeizerSoze, but don't go dissing on the support.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, how many points does your country want? :-) Thanks for the affirmation of our time "wasted" typing thousand-word rebuttals for a school project!
Pakistan, I would wisely take Anonymous' advice if I were you.
Sorry, Pakistan, but I agree with Anonymous. Not that he (or she) said it great, but . . . That's beside the point.
ReplyDeleteReally, I'd just drop it. Typing out thousand-word rebuttals, as Toby called it, would be more appropriate for the conference and not so much on a blog, where your arguments will neither be considered, nor read by other countries. Arguing about it now is just giving someone else the upper hand.
That's my two-cents, anyways. Spend it how you'd like.
Keizersoze... I do understand that it is not exactly cut and dry as that but to suggest that India and china are really at all friendly is absurd. They dislike eachother and have had more than just one border conflict on the course india and china are on they will be to an almost cold war state very soon to states borddering eachother beefing up their militairies and their nuclear stockpiles... sounds familiar... and about my Grammar... I is grammar, aka i don't care that much.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I cannot help but agree with you on your later posts and the whole Glenn Beck thing (though Savage is so much worse). Also pakistan not degenerative just weak... Sooo why do you first argue with one person and then next argue the point that it is degenerative? you seem to knowledgable to make a mistake like that. I don't wish to be rude I just sometimes disagree with your opinions.
bordering and a bunch of commas
ReplyDelete~sorry
and is
ReplyDeleteHaha okay, just to clear up the Glenn Beck issue: I HATE Glenn Beck. There is not any disagreement there whatsoever. It's Taylor, the kid from India, who likes Glenn Beck. That's why I told him to go watch it, as a joke between friends. Then Keizer tried to make some clever joke about how it's ironic that the illogical country (Pakistan) thinks someone from the good country (India) is low enough to watch Beck. I am really really really not defending Glenn Beck.
ReplyDeleteAlso, yeah I'm not going to launch into a retort to all these points. It would literally take me 1000+ words. Though I think it's funny that Kels is telling me to stop righting 1000+ word rebuttals when if you like at the amount of words Toby and Keizer put in... You get the point. But yeah, I agree, I'm really not down for arguments this big that don't really serve a purpose. I just wanted to get my country's viewpoint out there, because Toby has done a good job of propagandizing this board. And that's not meant to be offensive, because we're both supposed to be furthering our own country's interests.
As for anonymous (the anonymous that LOVES Toby and Keizer)... Being on debate doesn't necessarily make someone a good debater. They're both clearly competent, but that's really no reason to shy away from arguments. I'm confident I could win this argument (at least in my eyes) if I kept up with the arguments, but they're just soooooooo long. Anyway, good luck and everything.
P.S. Ahmadinejad? Seriously?
Dreggman: I'm not sure of what you're referencing in what I wrote. What do you mean by degenerative, not weak?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if I didn't make it clear - I wasn't just telling you that it wasn't conventional to write thousand word comments - I really kind of mean all of you.
ReplyDeleteOh well. Try to win this argument on a blog if you'd like. Just remember that the speeches are coming up, and those of us who have read these aren't going to listen if you just reiterate what you've said on here. And really, that goes for everyone, just to make myself clear.
I agree. I just wanted my group's arguments out there.
ReplyDeleteSincerly, thank you for the glenn beck comment clear up
ReplyDeleteThat was confusing me and it all makes sense now.
Moving on....
http://www.bjreview.com.cn/world/txt/2009-01/18/content_175047.htm
"Today, there is an overarching consensus across India's political spectrum that an efficiently transacted, stable, durable and well-balanced relationship with China is vital to India. It is heartening to see similar sentiments expressed by the top leaders in China, who have defined ties with India as a strategic policy of their country."
Really? A new cold war between states like these?
yes because every time China or for that matter India says anything they mean exacyly that and are being amazingly sincere... Though I admit cold war may be over shooting they simply have trouble with on another...
ReplyDeleteHowever, if China were having problems with India, why would they put in their own newspaper that everything was great and wonderful? Unless they're trying to fool their own people? I suppose that it's happened before . . .
ReplyDeleteactually yeah... that happens almost everyday in china... whatever... I look forward to the conference where we can all argue to our hearts contents.
ReplyDeletemost newspapers in a strict state try to promote what the state feels about a certain nation, rather than deliberately try and mislead them....
ReplyDeleteEssentially, The Soviet Union wasn't promoting pro-USA points of view in the newspapers to try and "trick" their populace...
But Pakistan, no matter how much arguing we do at the conference and on the blogs,
remember that we <3 you.
PALESINE
ReplyDeleteARIAN LEFFINGWELL
WADE POWELL
Palestine Jammu-Kashmir.
As of May 14h, 2009, the country of Palestine, on the issue of Jammu-Kashmir, supports the Pakistan’s sovereignty over the region.
Pakistan has always supported Palestine. We have friendly relationship with them. Most Palestinians believe that this is a Muslim battle and support Pakistan on the issue. Unfortunately there is not much that we can do directly we have our own battles to fight. However we would like to see a resolution to this issue, and the resolution that we have in mind can only be a Pakistani rule.
The Eurasian conference should support Pakistan’s sovereignty over the region. We can see what happens when a Muslim majority population is put in charge by a predominantly Hindu government. There is bloodshed, and then there is more bloodshed. The only way to avoid this from happening again is by allowing Pakistan to governing this region.
The Eurasian Conference was fun. <3 It was a pleasure to argue with you all. And of course, hearing the Algeria declaration made my day.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of jammu-Kashmir Iraq finds no sway towards either option. Our country will be looking for countries that do have involvement in this issue to try and persuade our vote. We have heard offers from both representatives of India and Russia before the conference which had very convincing persuasions. Which would mean we would vote for Indian sovereignty over the region of jammu-Kashmir.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the countries at the conference should vote with us because India already has control of more than half the region and only forfeits its shares at certain times of the year. It is only a burden on the rest of the nations to keep these kind of disputes when there is a simple answer. This answer is a vote for the sovereignty of India in jammu-Kashmir. This solution is in the best interest of many bordering countries and to the many other nations of Eurasia. It is the most economical, peace-keeping, and wise choice to make.