everyone is always going to stick up for their own viewpoint etc However what tends to get forgotten is that the 'start' of any war is usually not the start As someone from Kashmir, I have witnessed first hand what the Indian army has/is responsible for. When a man has seen his 6 year old daughter raped by Indian soldiers he doesnt worry too much about the impact on Indian families as he straps himself up and boards a train. For himits not political or a job etc Where do you draw the line for when this conflict started? Is it the Indian forces he blames who carried out the act? or the sikh who sold Kashmir to the Indians? or in fact the Brits who left it there as a legacy? That father is living with the consequences of something that was planted decades ago. He is not educated or rich. He is just living with the consequences He is now a tool for Pakistan and enemy of those he holds responsible A young 20 year old Brit soldier sent into a zone like this will never understand this, yet this man would be his enemy
Or is it the pakistani's who seem to blame everything that happens on everybody else. Back to the subject, I say bomb those argy ****ers back to the stone age... twice
To answer the OP, no she won't and indeed can't, with any genuine expectation of success. British forces might seem thin on the ground, but they're technically superior to any invasion threat.Although only 4 Typhoons patrol the Falklands (I think), the RAF now have sufficient heavy lift transporters to deploy more, within 48 hrs.Plus standard nuclear submarine patrols, plus HMS Dauntless etc. It's just posturing before the potential oil/gas negotiations begin ? (sorry for staying on topic).
That one's easy. You blame Nehru and the Pakistani separatists who insisted on partitioning India when the Brits left. And Mountbatten for colluding with the Islamist bigots.
