Vijay Reddy Posted April 2, 2005 Author Posted April 2, 2005 Request to nitin and TSJ -> Please excercise restraint. This thread has gone deep into the FFZ realm as it is.
Aaron K Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 I would not be surprised if it was Pakee supplied stinger that downed US Army’s Chinook helicopter in Iraq. LeT (Laskkhar e Taiba) is highly active in Iraq. Since the day LeT entered Iraq, American casualties in Iraq increased dramatically.
TSJ Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 Aron K: Those stingers are very old and Iraq had plenty of russian manpads.
Aaron K Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 TSJ, I agree they could be SA-7s. There are plenty of them in the market as well.
nitin Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 (edited) LOL. Do I need to pull out my own posts on the US on BR and point out the number of times I have supported the US... Poor me cares for Indo- US relations, because poor me grew up on Archie comics and riverdale and is still naive enough to believe India and the US have a lot in common. "Chanakya was a famous Indian warrior/bureaucrat a 1000 years ago who helped unite all the Indian kingdoms. He was the equivilent of Machievelli and he wrote down all his instructions. In this sense it means to lie and cheat when necessary. " ROTFL. Chanakya was a warrior? And he wrote down all his instructions? See TSJ- this is what makes you what you are. And you hide behind the US flag. Brazenly. The automatic assumption- you make it implicitly- that a person of my religion follows some ancient shite and follows a grand strategy... Thats what makes you so unique, your views are so unabashedly racist...and delightfully quaint... That you use unabshedly racist terms openly and then justify it by pointing to Indian posters who used it as cutting self deprecating humor...to point out how sick the characterization was....but you use such terms openly...and believe in it... And your constant assertion that All Americans are like you, good ole boys ....somehow I still dont buy that despite your fervent entreaties... Heck...I have been on this board before you ....and I know most aint like you...that says it all...and TNet is as rightwing as it gets...so all your claims of being a super US soldier man and representative of whatever America feels ...is so much ... Thats what gets your goat doesnt it...that we talk back... Oh wait- I should suck upto you .. and go *slobber slobber* at US selling weapons to Pak...that would make me slimy and Chankian...now if I do the reverse...that makes me *uber Chankian*, disguising my true *evil nature*... LOL. Unfortunately for you, this !@#$ will continue to hope for a lot from the US...because many of us with friends and folks in the US still care....and we'll excoriate US decision makers when we think that they made a mistake...we'll praise them other times when we see something in the US that is admirable ...and there is lots..... That makes us human.... Of course, according to you we're all hardwired hindu liars...but then you are you... I see you have given jerking off on the Swedes for being anti American !@#$ ...whatever for...we Chankian evil Hindus were in first world company for a while.. Only a coward of the Nth order would LIE as you normally do AND hide behind a flag after trolling on other boards...and you do that all the time...pathetic. Edited April 2, 2005 by nitin
Aaron K Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 I have heard this debate before. Whether Stinger can still be operational after all these years. I do not know for sure whether it was Stinger or SA-7 (or more modern variant of SA-7) that downed Chinook helicopter. Some reports claimed it was Stinger and some reports claimed it was SA-7. Stingers are solid fuel rockets. Am I correct? As such, why won’t they still be operational? Is there something in Stinger that expired after certain number of years that rendered it non-operational? Just curious!
nitin Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 (edited) Request to nitin and TSJ -> Please excercise restraint. This thread has gone deep into the FFZ realm as it is.160581[/snapback] What for? What did you start this thread for anyhow? To guage "reasonable opinions"?To convince the likes of TSJ that they "made a mistake"? Well then my dear Chankian hindu friend- I'd suggest you reevaluate your options and return to your: 1. Third world country2. Call center3. Be a born liar/ dissembler etc. I had some of the reasonable "notions" on this thread...and am calling a spade a spade...whats wrong with the FFZ anyhow... Anyhow theres always the assumption that our anger and intense disappointment at the US SD and its "quick fixes" is an attack on the US which never makes mistakes... That the SD is following a grand strategy...we are fools for thinking otherwise... Aron K, Talk to Indian services personnel - they are CATEGORICAL about stingers being used at Kargil... Its no classified secret.... BTW...... Both Ahuja and the Mi-17 had multiple Stingers launched at them... Ahuja made the blunder of repeating his path and allowing the guys on the ground to predict his movements... The Mi-17 was pure bad luck- its CMDS was non functional...it was sent in with others whose CMDS was...assumption was that would be sufficient. ..worked initially..they hung around for too long, responded to one BAI call too many...and a Stinger got them.... After Kargil, the IAF Base Repair Depots went on a crash course to retrofit the IAF transport fleet with CMDS.... The Pakistanis dont use SA-7's for their frontline troops....those have Mistrals and RBS-70's... The Stinger was used in Kargil as it was associated with the muj already and was deniable.. And thats why the IAF and IA say ...stinger....but what would they know ....they just fought there... Unless you are talking entirely of SA-7s in Iraq.. Edited April 2, 2005 by nitin
Daan Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 (edited) You really must climb off that soap-box. What gives you the entitlement to "aid" India?Geez, was I talking about a Dutch right to do so? My criticism is directed at the way India refuses to take aid from smaller countries by just blunty saying: "You are too small and bad for our status." Perhaps thats because you don't get your money and interest back from countries with bad governance? Besides that much aid is grants, this is one reason of course. The other, morally more important, is that if the regime is corrupt, aid doesn't work and this money could have been spent on other projects. Opportunity costs, plain and simple! Was that so hard to come up with? OTOH your country profits from poverty while claiming to be saintly and giving "aid" - thats hyprocrisy!Again, besides that much aid is composed of grants, see even your own article (which also confirms that the reason for the refusal is that NL is too small and NOT that India doesn't need the help [as NGOs are less humiliating in the GoI's eyes].) We could have invested the money in projects with a higher rate of return: opportunity costs de nouvea; but because of our kindness we chose not to and use it as aid and consequently take an economic loss on these loans. This aid has a large net present value due to the high benefits India can reap from it and the low interest rates on these development loans. However, you obviously have never heard of opportunity costs, net present values and required rate or returns or the IRR; otherwise you wouldn't make these silly statements that erronously try to argue against cheap loans to developing countries. Your interpretation of the article you posted is all misguided. First this was a grant and not a loan that could be recovered. Second, this direct government-to-government aid is also meant to forge good ties between the Netherlands and India, something of we both may profit. If it was first given to an NGO, this organization takes the credit as this extra step obscures the real source of the funds. Third, NGOs incur their own costs, which reduces the amount of money avialable to the local government and entrepreneurs. In addition, they want some kind of infuence on how it should be spent. Fifth, India insulted the Dutch government by telling it is too small to aid desperatelty poor, but "great and superior" India and one can not reasonably expect of the Dutch government to take such arrogance lightly. There is simply no such thing as a free lunch no matter how much you insult your benefactor. There are good financial reasons for declining small government loans because the economic effort to repay back small loans have little gain. Economically, large loans are more feasible for GoI because it gives greater flexibility and better management in terms of pooling resources and deciding which areas the money should go to instead of being dictated which area the money goes to. Nonsense that has nothing to with the refusal to accept Dutch aid. You people simply don't want to see the arrogance of the Indian government, do you? India is still accepting aid from countries which gave LESS aid than the Dutch government, because they are big and more important. India's equals in the opinion of the GoI, and not such a pathetic little North-Sea nation that can neglected. The reason to refuse aid from SMALL countries was a political decision in which economic benefits to the poor population are thrown out of the window to give haughty politicians an ego-boost. Edited April 2, 2005 by Daan
Recommended Posts