There was also a news article saying Turkey was pro Isreal and the west and now saying Isreal is a terrorist state and is anti-Isreal and the west.
I will see if I can find that news article and post it.
There was also other news article saying how Turkey and Egypt would keep the peace in the middle east and now with new government may not be the case.
How in the world are Pakistan and Israel going to go to war? There is 1000 miles and three countries between them.
The idea of a general war breaking out in the middle east is far
Fetched at this point. Syria is in the middle of a civil war. Lebanon is as divided as ever, and Hezbollah has no real capacity to invade Israel. That leaves Jordan and Egypt. Egypt just had a revolution and an offensive war seems unlikely. Jordan has been the closest thing israel has to an ally in the middle east today.
Honestly, the chance of war in the me is probably at the lowest point in a decade.
Iraq and Iran are next door, and Iraq has been expansionist for most of its modern history. Pakistan is neither, unless you count Kashmir.
Why wouldn’t you?
I thought Kashmir was less about expansionism, and more about India & Pakistan hating each other and butting heads?
Kashmir was most certainly a case of expansionism on Pakistan’s part. As for whether it was about India and Pakistan butting heads, Kashmir is probably a large part of the reason why India and Pakistan hate each other. From wikipedia, but as it’s a quote of what should be a neutral source, I think it’s probably unbiased -
Pakistani demagogues don’t need Israel because they already have India. And after a decade of the Afghanistan war, the United States.
“Join Date late 2012” is the Arab Spring of the SDMB.
Here is the news article on Turkey .
Read here http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/16538355-452/turkeys-wrong-turn.html
Here is article on Hamas and also Syria being hostility to west and where the US may step in.
There some other articles on questions of Egypt not has pro west do to Muslim brotherhood they are talking about.
Again one can read many of the news articles and concluded many of these countries are hostility of Israel and the west.
At one time Turkey and Egypt where more pro west.
These countries having their own problems and civil war well that has not been explain here.
Because Pakistan has as strong a claim to sovereignty over Kashmir as India does (inasmuch as states with arbitrary boundaries can claim anything). It’s not as though the accession procedure at Partition was democratic.
Don’t mean to be rude, you generally make very good points, but that’s bollocks. I’m happy to concede, for the sake of this discussion only, that India’s claim is not absolute, because Kashmiris haven’t got the right to vote whether they want to be independent.
But India’s claim is a damn sight stronger than Pakistan’s. Even if it were not, Pakistan was STILL being expansionary. It sent troops(yeah, irregulars, but I doubt that matters to either of us) into territory that was not its own. Kashmir was a princely state, the ruler of which could, in theory, have chosen to stay independent. As it happens, he acceded to India because of Pakistani forces were trying to take over the state. India then proceeded to send in troops to territory that had been ceded to it, and by most legal standpoints, was thus its territory. The UN ruling on the matter happened after this, and the plebiscite was not carried out because one of the preconditions was that Pakistan withdraw its troops completely.
Okay, that was poorly worded. Make it “had”.
Sure, I agree with that.
While I’m probably inclined agree with the “had” vs. “has” clarification at this point, one should be just a little cautious about the account above. It is more or less the Indian government’s version of events. It is not the Pakistani version, understandably ;). And unfortunately the extreme chaos of that period of time makes it hard to tease out an unvarnished truth between the two. While I do lean towards a more Indian-like probable sequence of events during the immediate crisis, India’s post-occupation stance comes off as a bit more bearish in the aftermath.
IMHO from my reading of what particulars I have come across, just about everybody in that mess comes off poorly. Pakistan, India or Maharajah Hari Singh - none of them acquitted themselves particularly well from my POV. And no way either India or Pakistan would ever have tolerated that theoretical independence for Kashmir. It just wasn’t going to happen as the events in Hyderabad and Junagadh ( something of a reverse-Kashmir in certain respects ) help show.
You say this as though I were quoting propaganda 
I think practically all neutral observers would agree with my summation of events. Look at my earlier quote from wikipedia, which is in turn drawn from Burton Stein’s “A History of India”. I have verified it from a (probably pirated) pdf of the book available online. It is quoted verbatim, and agrees entirely with the summary I’ve stated. If there are specific parts that you think are wrong, point me to a cite, I’ll be happy to learn more about the different viewpoints and see how credible or not they are.
AFAIK, India approached the UN to mediate, even before they occupied the entire state. It’s regarded as Nehru’s folly by most people in India, but it does point to him believing that he had a strong case. If you have a cite that says otherwise, and backs up your statement about India’s post-occupation stance coming off as more bearish, I’ll be happy to look at it and learn.
I agree Kashmir likely wasn’t going to remain independent, and nobody comes off particularly well. I still think Pakistan is at the bottom of that heap though. Of course, I’m Indian, I would.
The one positive of the last 10 or so years of the explosion of terrorism and the ‘War on terror’ for me and most Indians is that now most of the world tends to agree that Pakistan’s version of events is usually not to be trusted. Not saying they’re necessarily lying, just that whoever’s giving out the ‘official’ version may not even really know what’s going on.
ETA: This last para is a bit of a deviation from the rest of the conversation, which centers around the events of 1947/48
I like the late Burton Stein fine ( I have a copy of his history of Vijayanagara ) :), but just as a counterpoint from another general survey - Stanley Wolpert’s A New History of India: While he temporized during late August and early September, the province of Poonch, in the southwest corner of Kashmir, flared in revolt, Muslim peasants rising against the oppression of Dogra Rajput landowners. The Poonch revolt was supported by neighboring Pakistani Muslims, who crossed the borders of the state in numbers to aid co-religionists in their agrarian struggle for freedom. Hari Singh viewed the revolt as a Pakistani plot to depose him.
This lays out what might be termed a more “Pakistani view” - i.e. that there was a native revolt ( certainly true ) and that local tribesmen crossed the border in support of a rebellion against an autocrat with no Pakistani foreknowledge or support ( a far more contentious argument ). The actual truth of the last bit has never really been ascertained. 1947 was an enormously chaotic period and Pakistan’s central government was shaky with an imperfect control of it own internal apparatus, especially the recently partitioned army and provincial governments. The whole mess was made even more messier by apparently substantial numbers of recently demobilized soldiers that could whip themselves into a coherent paramilitary force on presumably short notice.
Circumstantial evidence would suggest that at least some local military units ( including British officers embedded in Pakistani units ) and at least the neighboring provincial government gave a wink and a nod ( and military hardware ) to the “tribals” that poured across the border. Hence my inclination to take a more India-centric view of events. But how far up the chain of command such presumed collusion went is really hard to tease out. It is entirely possible that folks like Jinnah never had a direct hand in any of it until after the fact.
Poking around the web, this seems like a reasonably even-handed treatment. A couple of selected sentences:
Many critics of the Indian position, point out that this enthusiasm for an election was less to do with a point of principle, than the belief that, with the appointment of Sheikh Abdullah to office, his pro-Indian stance would ensure a victorious outcome in the poll. and
From 1954 onwards, the Indians were increasingly reluctant to discuss the holding of a referendum at all, leading to various allegations that, with the onset of hostilities between Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru, New Delhi was no longer confident of success, or indeed of the wider loyalties of the National Conference.
From such comments stems my characterization of India as a bit “bearish” - they seem to have dug in their heels a little too stubbornly on the plebiscite issue, such that their stance comes off as a bit hinky ( at least to me ). Much like the U.S. and the referendum in South Vietnam that was never held, there seems to be a slight stench of “we’re not going to win, so we’re not going to let it happen.” Unfair? Possibly, but India does have a reputation for a certain ruthless realpolitik ( I’d cite Hyderabad again or Goa ) when it comes to territory.
Not that I think any of the above puts Pakistan on the side of angels. Quite the contrary, really. Support for the likes of the Lashkar-e-taiba is intolerable, whether official or done behind closed doors by overly autonomous ISI staffers. It’s just that, cynical me, I tend to regard both with a bit of a jaundiced eye ;).
I don’t think we have any substantial disagreements Thanks for the links, will go through them at some point
If you didn’t know already, Tamerlane is one of the people who adds real value to the board. 
I was kind of shocked to discover he’s an armchair historian and not a professional; his knowledge of Asian history is almost frightening.
Tamerlane’s link is great for anyone interested in the history of the Kashmir issue by the way. As he notes, even handed. To my reading though, even that link, by and large, with the qualifications noted by Tamerlane, backs the Indian version of events.
It continues -
I find it interesting that Pakistan was regarded as being linked with terrorists in at least some neutral quarters as far back as 1997.
And ironic that Nawaz Sharif should have gotten so remarkably upstaged by the parallel government. First Kargil, which continued the pattern this author has noted, and then the coup.
2001 census numbers.
Total population of Jammu and Kashmir - 10,069,917.
Kashmir Valley consists of Kupwara, Baramula, Srinagar, Budgam, Pulwama, and Anantnag. They comprise a population of 5,441,341 with a demographics of roughly 85% Sunnis, 10% Shias, and 5% Hindus.
Jammu consists of the districts of Punch, Rajauri, Udhampur, Jammu, Kathua, and Doda. These comprise a population of 4,395,712 with a demographics of roughly 30% Sunnis, 5% Shias, and 65% Hindus.
Ladakh consists of Leh and Kargil with a total population of 232,864 with around 50% Buddhists and 50% Shias.
This doesnt include displaced Hindus from Kashmir valley.
100% of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Shia muslims want to remain with India, that is 100% sure.
Also, No one, including the sunnis, wants to join pakistan.
India has it covered even if a plebiscite was to happen imo. But still, it wouldn’t happen, rightly so…