Why Pakistan is not a walkover.

[Kaptaan]

Interesting, mature and well reasoned analysis by Indian expert on the Pakistan military. Some points he makes -

• Pakistan has never lost on the western theatre [Pakistan mainland] ~ 14:55
• If we [India] had beaten Pakistan decisively like we say then the cease fire line/line of control would have been obliterated ~ 15:30

 

[GoatsMilk]

If you go to war its better your enemy thinks you are a walk over. Because if they take you seriously they will make plans and contingency and in general fight harder and better.

 

[Jackdaws]

Interesting, mature and well reasoned analysis by Indian expert on the Pakistan military. Some points he makes -

• Pakistan has never lost on the western theatre [Pakistan mainland] ~ 14:55
• If we [India] had beaten Pakistan decisively like we say then the cease fire line/line of control would have been obliterated ~ 15:30

Factually incorrect. In 65 India captured Kargil for good. In 71 they captured the town of Chachro well inside Sindh (which they kept till after Shimla agreement) and captured the Baltistani town of Turtuk.

Sawhney is like the anti Arnab - same lies and exaggerations except on the opposite side.

 

[Raptor]

Pakistanis quote sawney much
"Pakistan never lost a war"
Well how you answer that?

 

[Raptor]

 

[Waz]

Countries with significant military strength can never be a walkover.
There's also the fact Pakistan and India know each other well.

 

[Jackdaws]

Countries with significant military strength can never be a walkover.
There's also the fact Pakistan and India know each other well.

Of course it's not a walkover. Point is any inference espoused should be rooted in fact.