On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:09:54AM +0530, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Krish Ashok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > But the bigger issue is what happens if they do secede and there's a sudden > > de-escalation in military expenditure. Somebody is sure to pull some strings > > to get a few more wars started elsewhere to make up for lost profits. > > Your assumption is that you are dealing with logical people who will > stop once they have their wants fulfilled. I would love the said > de-escalation to happen, guns and bombs are a waste of time, money and > lives. Except, it just won't happen.
I've always found predicting the future to be a dodgy affair. > There are large bodies of people > on both sides of the border who are interested in keeping the feud > going, with our without Kashmir. This is an ideological war we find > ourselves in, there is sadly no room for logic. We didn't ask to be in > it, but I don't see a way out. Do you? For me, it boils down to this -- if there is a free and fair referendum and the people of Kashmir vote to secede, I do not see any moral or ethical way I could justify holding them back. Will this reduce the violence in the region? Maybe, maybe not. Either has no bearing on the fact that holding a people against their will is, at least in my book, a crime. Venky (the Second). -- One hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong.
