New Members Added: 115/1000 Skip to content Try Ads-Free Fark It's Not News, It's Fark How To FarkLog In | Sign Up » Forgot password? Turn on javascript (or enable it for Fark) for a better user experience. If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page. Discussion Entertainment Pakistan reinforces troops on the border with India, says invasion is imminent, and claims to only use nukes if Pakistan's existence is threatened. That's SO reassuring (reuters.com) More: News 577 clicks;posted toMain »on 28 Apr 2025 at4:20 PM(1 hour ago) | Favorite | Watch | share: Copy Link 57 Comments Enable JavaScript for Fark in order to vote for entries. Log in (at the top of the page) to enable voting. View Voting Results:SmartestandFunniest | Show all Wenchmaster (17) Funniest 3 hours ago I wrote this back in 2008, on another site, but it seemed appropriate for today's news. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES There used to be a very good show on BBC called Connections. I highly recommend this series (actually three separate seasons) for anyone curious about how things happened in just the way they happened. In one episode, James Burke (the host) explained how an Indian prince suffering from a headache in the 8th Century led more-or-less directly to the US space program. Fascinating stuff- especially if you're interested in the unintended consequences of various actions and/or inactions. For example, Henry the VIIIth of England was tired of his wife, which has led more-or-less directly to the real possibility of a nuclear war in south Asia. Bear with me, here. I'm not nearly as good at this as James Burke, and I don't have a BBC research team backing me up. I'm operating solely on remembered history, some fast Google searches, and a healthy dose of W.A.G.s (Wild-Ass Guesses). Let us begin, Hank the 8th was tired of the lovely young thing he'd married, and wanted to bed a different lovely young thing. Since he was officially a Catholic, he couldn't get a divorce. Since he was King, he figured he ought to be able to get rid of the wife and marry the new girl, so he drop-kicked the Catholic church and started the Church of England (basically the same except for that pesky no-divorce thingie). Unfortunately, England was now a Protestant country at a time when the superpowers of the era were very cognizant of the political benefits of being on the Pope's side. When the Pope excommunicated Henry, the King of Spain was all too willing to enhance his public perception of piety by doing his best to undermine the English monarchy. As a result of this long-term enmity between England and the Catholic monarchs of Europe, England was cut off from a lot of raw materials and manufactured goods from the Continent- and later from the Americas. The Brits did what they could by fighting the odd war at sea, making fast voyages to Protestant ports in Europe, and generally learning how to build and maintain a recognizably modern Navy (a wonderful asset for any island nation). When the Spanish and French tried to keep England out of the treasure troves of MesoAmerica, the English turned to piracy (improving their nautical abilities) and colonizing marginal areas in the Caribbean and in North America (giving them strongholds, supply ports, raw materials, and someplace to plant surplus population). This simultaneous expansion of naval capabilities and overseas territories led England into multiple conflicts with the European powers. When the MesoAmerican plunder-fest finally died out with the last of the easily-accessible Incan and Aztec gold, the three major European powers (England, France, and Spain) found themselves increasingly locking horns over North American territories. Defeating near-equal military powers is expensive, so England started increasing the taxes on their North American colonists. When those colonists complained that they were getting excluded from the political process used to raise or lower taxes, England decided to spank their impudent behinds to remind them that mama knows best. The colonists were understandably miffed, and foolishly decided to rebel against the most powerful nation on Earth at that time- hoping mainly to stay alive long enough to coax at least one other European power into the fight on their side. Luckily for the colonists, the French decided to play, and England lost their biggest and most prosperous overseas colony. Even handily spanking the fledgling country in another war two decades later couldn't bring the Americans back into the fold, so the English and Americans eventually started doing business together. The British still had extensive colonies elsewhere overseas, and managed to hang onto many of them- partly as a result of lessons learned during the American affairs. A century later, the new country even joined their British cousins and French former allies in a massive cluster-fark of a war in mainland Europe. This was so successful that they decided to do it again thirty years later. By this time, the British Empire was huge- stretching across half the planet and including a significant percentage of the world's population. One of the jewels in the British crown was India. Another was the area we now call the Middle East. After WWII, Britain started to slowly divest itself of its various colonies. The vast tribal areas of the Middle East were divided into a patchwork of "nations" based on almost no ground research, a great deal of wishful thinking, and a modest amount of biblical misinformation. Thus the arbitrary lines on maps in Europe divided tribes and clans in Arabia, and their rulers were all propped up by British guns- so long as the rulers behaved themselves. Worse still, those arbitrary lines on the maps left clans and tribes which had been historical enemies in the new "nations". India managed to convince the British that trying to hold such a large country with the few thousand (at best) troops available was a losing proposition, and became their own country. The British managed one last attempt at guiding the future of the sub-continent by spinning off the easternmost and westernmost provinces into independent nations, using the high-quality decision-making processes that worked so well in the Middle East. Thus were Pakistan and Bangladesh created. India had a huge population which was deeply stratified along caste and religious lines. The well-thought-out British partition of the sub-continent left millions of Muslims in the predominantly Hindu nation of India (and thousands of Hindus in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation of Pakistan.) Indian society (and human nature) being what it was, these minority groups immediately suffered the fate of most minority groups throughout history. Violence escalating to war was the result. Repeatedly. In the Middle East, things were going beautifully. Everything was puppies and rainbows and unicorns. Wherever the population was overwhelmingly Muslim, sectarian violence flared up. Wherever large non-Muslim minority groups were present, the infidels often suffered from pogroms and violence. The only preventive measure against large-scale ethnic cleansing was the existence (or creation) of powerful dictators, who would keep order through overt military might. The presence of vast reserves of petroleum under the area drew the new power-brokers to the regional and sectarian conflicts. In the typically benevolent manner of such interactions, the two superpowers made things worse by adding ideological reasons for violence and hatred. After a few decades of coups, revolutions, wars, counter-coups, counter-revolutions, and more wars, one of the superpowers went home to nurse their wounds while the other started strutting about the planet like we owned the place. The fact that there was no longer a realistic military counter to American power made the covert and overt meddling in everyone's business even more galling. Everybody started disliking American policy- not just American citizens and the French. Mix loads of oil-created wealth in historically unstable nation-states created whole cloth from the remnants of the British Empire with swaggering American boorishness. Add in a healthy dose of longing for the mythical "good old days" of the Caliphate and several liberal helpings of Superpower guilt. Cook vigorously for years in a stew of extreme poverty, deliberate ignorance, and despotic ruthlessness. Sprinkle with plenty of religious whackjobs. Et voila! A feast of knives ensues. The loons who planned and committed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hoping that the resulting American counterstrike would cause the Islamic world to rise up against American domination and return to the purity and glory of the early Islamic world, but with AK-47s and (hopefully) nuclear weapons. Instead of vaporizing Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina, however, the US struck first at the home bases of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Since Al Qaeda was allied with the fundamentalist ass-hats who ruled Afghanistan, they had to go. The US overtly aided the Taliban's enemies with air power and special forces teams. With that kind of backing, the Northern Alliance eventually drove the Taliban (and their Al Qaeda allies) out of Afghanistan. Into Pakistan. Like the arbitrary and artificial "nations" created by the British in the Middle East, Pakistan was a hodge-podge of tribes and clans and long histories of mutual antipathy. Parts of Pakistan were not even nominally under the control of Pakistan's "government". Pakistan's military was only nominally under the control of the government- and often it was the other way around. The Pakistani military was legitimately obsessed with the threat from India, and the military intelligence services had a history of using religious fundamentalist whackjobs to carry out proxy wars with India to help even out the conventional military disparity between the two rivals. The Americans told Pakistan that they could either join in the Global War on Terror or the US would immediately and totally support India against Pakistan. Joining the GWOT would get Pakistan some international street cred (something the military dictatorship in power needed desperately), access to US military intelligence assets, and wads of US dollars. The Americans would even put pressure on India to warm relations with Pakistan, allowing the Pakistani military to devote time and assets to dealing with the obstreperous hill folk in the so-called "tribal areas". Giving aid and comfort to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, on the other hand, would earn Pakistan a sky full of hostile aircraft loaded with precision weaponry. Unwillingly, and with plenty of private caveats, reservations, and dark thoughts, Pakistan agreed to join the GWOT. This proved to be a serious mistake for the military dictatorship, since American public opinion loathes dictatorships. Political pressure in the US caused the State Department and the White House to put increasing pressure on Pakistan's ruler to open up his political processes. Dictatorships rarely last once the dictator stops applying the lash, and Pakistan was no different. Out with the latest in a long line of military overlords and in with a weak (but more-or-less democratically-elected) civilian government which was automatically at odds with the military and intelligence organizations. These groups chafed under US pressures to handle the increasingly-violent tribal areas and were in no mood to help the civilian government out with a Muslim population also unhappy with infidel troops occasionally raiding across the border from Afghanistan in pursuit of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. With all of this nonsense going on, a lot of Pakistani militant groups got to thinking about ways to further reduce the military pressure from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that starting a new face-off with India would do the job nicely. The last time an Islamic terror group from Pakistan had operated in India, a six-month bout of troop maneuvers and other saber-rattling had ensued, diverting Pakistani military attention away from the Tribal areas and toward the Indian border. So a group of local nutjobs trained hard for a few months while gathering intelligence on politically-worthwhile targets inside India, then they viciously and publicly murdered a couple of hundred people in Mumbai this past weekend. To make damned sure the blame would land on Pakistan, these terrorists broke most of the counter-intelligence rules and left obvious clues behind everywhere they went- such as a satellite phone with lots of calls to known Kashmir- based terrorist groups. Now, public opinion in India is demanding an energetic response from their government. The US is trying very hard to keep the two nuclear-armed countries from going for each others' throats, and so are the civilian governments of both India and Pakistan. If another blatant Pakistan-based terrorist attack occurs in the near future, India's government might be forced to respond militarily- such as by mobilizing reserves and moving troops to the Pakistani border. Pakistan would be forced to respond in kind. A few more atrocities by hot-heads on either side of the border could easily precipitate a shooting war. India could crush Pakistan in a conventional fight, and both countries know it. Pakistan could very easily end up using nuclear weapons to defeat India's vastly superior conventional military. This could very easily result in a full-scale nuclear exchange. Here's an excellent article on the probabilities and possible consequences. A bit long-winded, full of plausible historical notions and some guesswork on my part (along with a great many egregious shortcuts with history), but that is why Henry VIIIth's inability to keep his codpiece at home could lead to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. (2) Funniest (4) Funniest Ah well. Elect or elt yourself be ruled by right-wing authoritarians, you get war. I think there have actually been scientific studies on simulating that, too. (12) Funniest Wenchmaster: I wrote this back in 2008, on another site, but it seemed appropriate for today's news. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES There used to be a very good show on BBC called Connections. I highly recommend this series (actually three separate seasons) for anyone curious about how things happened in just the way they happened. In one episode, James Burke (the host) explained how an Indian prince suffering from a headache in the 8th Century led more-or-less directly to the US space program. Fascinating stuff- especially if you're interested in the unintended consequences of various actions and/or inactions. For example, Henry the VIIIth of England was tired of his wife, which has led more-or-less directly to the real possibility of a nuclear war in south Asia. Bear with me, here. I'm not nearly as good at this as James Burke, and I don't have a BBC research team backing me up. I'm operating solely on remembered history, some fast Google searches, and a healthy dose of W.A.G.s (Wild-Ass Guesses). Let us begin, Hank the 8th was tired of the lovely young thing he'd married, and wanted to bed a different lovely young thing. Since he was officially a Catholic, he couldn't get a divorce. Since he was King, he figured he ought to be able to get rid of the wife and marry the new girl, so he drop-kicked the Catholic church and started the Church of England (basically the same except for that pesky no-divorce thingie). Unfortunately, England was now a Protestant country at a time when the superpowers of the era were very cognizant of the political benefits of being on the Pope's side. When the Pope excommunicated Henry, the King of Spain was all too willing to enhance his public perception of piety by doing his best to undermine the English monarchy. As a result of this long-term enmity between England and the Catholic monarchs of Europe, England was cut off from a lot of raw materials and manufactured goods from the Continent- and later from the Americas. The Brits did what they c ... gameshowhost (0) Funniest Walker: Wenchmaster: I wrote this back in 2008, on another site, but it seemed appropriate for today's news. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES There used to be a very good show on BBC called Connections. I highly recommend this series (actually three separate seasons) for anyone curious about how things happened in just the way they happened. In one episode, James Burke (the host) explained how an Indian prince suffering from a headache in the 8th Century led more-or-less directly to the US space program. Fascinating stuff- especially if you're interested in the unintended consequences of various actions and/or inactions. For example, Henry the VIIIth of England was tired of his wife, which has led more-or-less directly to the real possibility of a nuclear war in south Asia. Bear with me, here. I'm not nearly as good at this as James Burke, and I don't have a BBC research team backing me up. I'm operating solely on remembered history, some fast Google searches, and a healthy dose of W.A.G.s (Wild-Ass Guesses). Let us begin, Hank the 8th was tired of the lovely young thing he'd married, and wanted to bed a different lovely young thing. Since he was officially a Catholic, he couldn't get a divorce. Since he was King, he figured he ought to be able to get rid of the wife and marry the new girl, so he drop-kicked the Catholic church and started the Church of England (basically the same except for that pesky no-divorce thingie). Unfortunately, England was now a Protestant country at a time when the superpowers of the era were very cognizant of the political benefits of being on the Pope's side. When the Pope excommunicated Henry, the King of Spain was all too willing to enhance his public perception of piety by doing his best to undermine the English monarchy. As a result of this long-term enmity between England and the Catholic monarchs of Europe, England was cut off from a lot of raw materials and manufactured goods from the Continent- and later from the Americas. The Brits di ... goddammit i'd just found the meme fragMasterFlash (0) Funniest You have died of dissing India. gameshowhost (3) Funniest So anyhow this could be our global warming n' overpopulation two-fer solution. Courage. Lurk sober post drunk (5) Funniest gameshowhost: So anyhow this could be our global warming n' overpopulation two-fer solution. Courage. and tech support jobs AppleOptionEsc (3) Funniest Spartapuss (2) Funniest IamRat: [Fark user image image 425x172] No size restrictions? You're Not Special (0) Funniest Wenchmaster: I wrote this back in 2008, on another site, but it seemed appropriate for today's news. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES There used to be a very good show on BBC called Connections. I highly recommend this series (actually three separate seasons) for anyone curious about how things happened in just the way they happened. In one episode, James Burke (the host) explained .... AnnoyingBuzz (0) Funniest Lurk sober post drunk: gameshowhost: So anyhow this could be our global warming n' overpopulation two-fer solution. Courage. and tech support jobs Nah... Nigeria or the Philippines is the next to be exploited region for low cost Tech wrokers. (0) Funniest 35 minutes ago Oh, all I see turns to brown As the nukes burn the ground extrafancy (5) Funniest 33 minutes ago We are kind of overbooked for conflicts right now, so perhaps we can pencil you guys in for summer of 2027? I'm afraid the schedule is pretty full of existential terror right now as it is, sorry! Sorelian's Ghost (1) Funniest 33 minutes ago I take calm in the fact that here in the US we have an incredibly stable leader who will undoubtedly show everyone what leadership in the face of danger looks like. Narrator: We are all going to die. WhiskeySticks (3) Funniest 32 minutes ago Lurk sober post drunk: gameshowhost: So anyhow this could be our global warming n' overpopulation two-fer solution. Courage. and tech support jobs And scam phone calls. Glorious Golden Ass (0) Funniest 31 minutes ago Well, at least nobody has to worry about Trump running for a third term. Thrakkorzog (1) Funniest 31 minutes ago Just throw them all in an El Salvadorian prison. Its obviously the solution to everything. whither_apophis (1) Funniest 34 minutes ago A study in 2019 determined even a local nuclear war will send up enough soot to screw the weather and kill hundreds of millions, if not billions https://climateandsecurity.org/2019/10/the-human-and-climatic-effects-of-an-india-pakistan-nuclear-conflict/ Money quote "The scenario, posited for the year 2025, examined features a high-casualty terrorist attack on Indian government officials resulting in widespread conflict between these countries." (9) Funniest 33 minutes ago (0) Funniest 32 minutes ago (0) Funniest 32 minutes ago WhiskeySticks: Lurk sober post drunk: gameshowhost: So anyhow this could be our global warming n' overpopulation two-fer solution. Courage. and tech support jobs And scam phone calls. Lol. When I get spam calls I ask "*insert genetic anglo american name here*" where he /she is calling from, and when they attempt to get back on script, repeat "WHERE are you calling from" until they either tell me a nation, or in a couple choice and satisfying cases "your mothers (or sisters) bed. (9) Funniest 30 minutes ago Wenchmaster: I wrote this back in 2008, on another site, but it seemed appropriate for today's news. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES There used to be a very good show on BBC called Connections. I highly recommend this series (actually three separate seasons) for anyone curious about how things happened in just the way they happened. In one episode, James Burke (the host) explained how an Indian prince suffering from a headache in the 8th Century led more-or-less directly to the US space program. Fascinating stuff- especially if you're interested in the unintended consequences of various actions and/or inactions. For example, Henry the VIIIth of England was tired of his wife, which has led more-or-less directly to the real possibility of a nuclear war in south Asia. Bear with me, here. I'm not nearly as good at this as James Burke, and I don't have a BBC research team backing me up. I'm operating solely on remembered history, some fast Google searches, and a healthy dose of W.A.G.s (Wild-Ass Guesses). Let us begin, Hank the 8th was tired of the lovely young thing he'd married, and wanted to bed a different lovely young thing. Since he was officially a Catholic, he couldn't get a divorce. Since he was King, he figured he ought to be able to get rid of the wife and marry the new girl, so he drop-kicked the Catholic church and started the Church of England (basically the same except for that pesky no-divorce thingie). Unfortunately, England was now a Protestant country at a time when the superpowers of the era were very cognizant of the political benefits of being on the Pope's side. When the Pope excommunicated Henry, the King of Spain was all too willing to enhance his public perception of piety by doing his best to undermine the English monarchy. As a result of this long-term enmity between England and the Catholic monarchs of Europe, England was cut off from a lot of raw materials and manufactured goods from the Continent- and later from the Americas. The Brits did what they c ... Your comment is fascinating, but wrong about chain of "unintended consequences" linking Henry VIII's marital issues to a potential nuclear war between India and Pakistan. However, while the storytelling is colorful and creative, it dramatically overstates the case for a direct causal connection and oversimplifies the complexity of global history. In fact, upon close inspection, the argument collapses under the weight of historical nuance, alternate causal pathways, and sheer contingency. Let's begin where the original argument does - with Henry VIII. First, Henry VIII's split with the Catholic Church was neither unprecedented nor wholly transformative in a way that fundamentally redirected global history toward the partition of India. Religious schisms were already roiling Europe by the time of Henry's personal crisis; Martin Luther had nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg's church in 1517, setting off the Protestant Reformation. Even without Henry's specific acts, the Catholic Church's monopoly on European Christianity was doomed by broader religious, political, and economic currents. Protestantism would have flourished in some form, with or without Henry's marital desires. England's eventual Protestantism was more a reflection of Europe's fragmentation than a radical new path solely triggered by one monarch's libido. Moreover, England's development into a naval power was driven less by the break with Catholicism and more by geographic determinism and material necessity. England, as an island nation, inevitably needed a strong navy to protect itself and to project power. The Spanish Armada (1588) and other conflicts with Catholic powers certainly influenced this development, but again, the drive for naval dominance would have existed even if England had remained Catholic. Portugal and Spain - both fiercely Catholic - were the first great seafaring empires of Europe, not because of their religious affiliation, but because of geographical and economic pressures. Colonization, likewise, was not uniquely tied to England's religious status. Catholic nations like Spain, Portugal, and France were voracious colonizers. England's American colonies were less a Protestant mission than a mercantile and demographic escape valve. Economic pressures, population growth, the search for new trade routes, and simple adventurism were just as critical. Thus, to draw a straight line from Henry's divorce to Britain's colonization efforts, and from there to the creation of the modern United States, is an enormous historical overreach. Your comment transitions to the American Revolution, it again implies an almost deterministic chain of causation: Britain's loss of the American colonies leading to a series of dominoes toppling toward the Cold War world order. Yet, Britain's empire did not crumble after the American Revolution. It grew, shifting focus toward India, Australia, and Africa. The British Empire was perhaps most powerful after the loss of the American colonies, illustrating a capacity to adapt rather than simply suffer an endless chain of failures. The partition of India in 1947 is indeed one of the key steps that sets up the modern India-Pakistan conflict. But attributing the partition solely or even predominantly to Britain's management post-WWII, itself supposedly caused by previous American actions, grossly underestimates the local factors at work. Hindu-Muslim divisions predate British involvement by centuries, rooted in the Islamic conquests of India starting around the 12th century. The Mughal Empire was Islamic, ruling over a Hindu majority. Communal violence, distrust, and social stratification had centuries to fester independently of any British colonial policies. While Britain's "divide and rule" tactics certainly exacerbated tensions, to view the partition as merely the "unintended consequence" of a long historical mishmash beginning with Henry VIII borders on absurd. Moreover, the Cold War - the framework for much of the later American involvement in South Asia - was less an inevitable consequence of British decline and more a result of ideological struggles between the USSR and the USA, two superpowers that would have clashed regardless of colonial legacies. The Soviet drive for global communism and the American drive for capitalist liberalism collided in multiple theaters - some previously colonized (Vietnam, Korea), others not (Europe itself). South Asia, rich in population and strategically located, would have been a Cold War battleground no matter how colonial maps had been drawn. Turning specifically to Pakistan's instability, blaming it on Britain's "bad cartography" is a dangerously reductive narrative. Pakistan's fragility stems from a mixture of factors: ethnic diversity, the weakness of civilian institutions, Cold War interventions, global Islamic revivalism, and the particular dynamics of Indo-Pakistani competition. Yes, British hurriedness in partitioning contributed to immediate chaos, but Pakistan's long-term evolution was shaped by internal decisions - including the elevation of the military, the persistent civilian-military tensions, and the adoption of Islamic ideology as a binding force - none of which were inevitable outcomes of British decolonization. In fact, if we look at other British ex-colonies - Canada, Australia, New Zealand - we find thriving, stable democracies. The Middle East's borders are often cited as "artificial," but again, many nations globally are born from arbitrary lines: most African countries, indeed, even the United States after the Louisiana Purchase. What differentiates unstable states from stable ones is not merely the borders but how internal governance adapts, builds legitimacy, and manages diversity. Thus, the idea that Henry VIII's hormonal impulsiveness launched a deterministic chain of causality leading to a nuclear standoff is a spectacularly imaginative but historically incoherent proposition. History is contingent. Small actions can have unforeseen consequences, yes, but human agency, local factors, and structural conditions constantly interact in ways that allow for multiple possible futures. To think otherwise is to fall into the "butterfly effect" fallacy writ large - mistaking the interconnectedness of historical events for a simplistic, mechanical chain reaction. Finally, it's important to recognize that nuclear tensions between India and Pakistan are not unique relics of colonial mismanagement but manifestations of genuine contemporary political, religious, and strategic dynamics. National identity, postcolonial traumas, military doctrines, and economic disparities - all modern issues - play as large, if not larger, a role than any medieval European monarch's love life. (0) Funniest 30 minutes ago gameshowhost: Walker: Wenchmaster: I wrote this back in 2008, on another site, but it seemed appropriate for today's news. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES There used to be a very good show on BBC called Connections. I highly recommend this series (actually three separate seasons) for anyone curious about how things happened in just the way they happened. In one episode, James Burke (the host) explained how an Indian prince suffering from a headache in the 8th Century led more-or-less directly to the US space program. Fascinating stuff- especially if you're interested in the unintended consequences of various actions and/or inactions. For example, Henry the VIIIth of England was tired of his wife, which has led more-or-less directly to the real possibility of a nuclear war in south Asia. Bear with me, here. I'm not nearly as good at this as James Burke, and I don't have a BBC research team backing me up. I'm operating solely on remembered history, some fast Google searches, and a healthy dose of W.A.G.s (Wild-Ass Guesses). Let us begin, Hank the 8th was tired of the lovely young thing he'd married, and wanted to bed a different lovely young thing. Since he was officially a Catholic, he couldn't get a divorce. Since he was King, he figured he ought to be able to get rid of the wife and marry the new girl, so he drop-kicked the Catholic church and started the Church of England (basically the same except for that pesky no-divorce thingie). Unfortunately, England was now a Protestant country at a time when the superpowers of the era were very cognizant of the political benefits of being on the Pope's side. When the Pope excommunicated Henry, the King of Spain was all too willing to enhance his public perception of piety by doing his best to undermine the English monarchy. As a result of this long-term enmity between England and the Catholic monarchs of Europe, England was cut off from a lot of raw materials and manufactured goods from the Continent- and later from the Americas. The Brits di ... goddammit i'd just found the meme Lurk sober post drunk (3) Funniest 34 minutes ago I feel like I wondered into askhistorians Lurk sober post drunk (0) Funniest 33 minutes ago Wandered, with wonder Gassy Snake (6) Funniest 33 minutes ago Wenchmaster: I wrote this back in 2008, on another site, but it seemed appropriate for today's news. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES There used to be a very good show on BBC called Connections. I highly recommend this series (actually three separate seasons) for anyone curious about how things happened in just the way they happened. In one episode, James Burke (the host) explained how an Indian prince suffering from a headache in the 8th Century led more-or-less directly to the US space program. Fascinating stuff- especially if you're interested in the unintended consequences of various actions and/or inactions. For example, Henry the VIIIth of England was tired of his wife, which has led more-or-less directly to the real possibility of a nuclear war in south Asia. Bear with me, here. I'm not nearly as good at this as James Burke, and I don't have a BBC research team backing me up. I'm operating solely on remembered history, some fast Google searches, and a healthy dose of W.A.G.s (Wild-Ass Guesses). Let us begin, Hank the 8th was tired of the lovely young thing he'd married, and wanted to bed a different lovely young thing. Since he was officially a Catholic, he couldn't get a divorce. Since he was King, he figured he ought to be able to get rid of the wife and marry the new girl, so he drop-kicked the Catholic church and started the Church of England (basically the same except for that pesky no-divorce thingie). Unfortunately, England was now a Protestant country at a time when the superpowers of the era were very cognizant of the political benefits of being on the Pope's side. When the Pope excommunicated Henry, the King of Spain was all too willing to enhance his public perception of piety by doing his best to undermine the English monarchy. As a result of this long-term enmity between England and the Catholic monarchs of Europe, England was cut off from a lot of raw materials and manufactured goods from the Continent- and later from the Americas. The Brits did what they could by fighting the odd war at sea, making fast voyages to Protestant ports in Europe, and generally learning how to build and maintain a recognizably modern Navy (a wonderful asset for any island nation). When the Spanish and French tried to keep England out of the treasure troves of MesoAmerica, the English turned to piracy (improving their nautical abilities) and colonizing marginal areas in the Caribbean and in North America (giving them strongholds, supply ports, raw materials, and someplace to plant surplus population). This simultaneous expansion of naval capabilities and overseas territories led England into multiple conflicts with the European powers. When the MesoAmerican plunder-fest finally died out with the last of the easily-accessible Incan and Aztec gold, the three major European powers (England, France, and Spain) found themselves increasingly locking horns over North American territories. Defeating near-equal military powers is expensive, so England started increasing the taxes on their North American colonists. When those colonists complained that they were getting excluded from the political process used to raise or lower taxes, England decided to spank their impudent behinds to remind them that mama knows best. The colonists were understandably miffed, and foolishly decided to rebel against the most powerful nation on Earth at that time- hoping mainly to stay alive long enough to coax at least one other European power into the fight on their side. Luckily for the colonists, the French decided to play, and England lost their biggest and most prosperous overseas colony. Even handily spanking the fledgling country in another war two decades later couldn't bring the Americans back into the fold, so the English and Americans eventually started doing business together. The British still had extensive colonies elsewhere overseas, and managed to hang onto many of them- partly as a result of lessons learned during the American affairs. A century later, the new country even joined their British cousins and French former allies in a massive cluster-fark of a war in mainland Europe. This was so successful that they decided to do it again thirty years later. By this time, the British Empire was huge- stretching across half the planet and including a significant percentage of the world's population. One of the jewels in the British crown was India. Another was the area we now call the Middle East. After WWII, Britain started to slowly divest itself of its various colonies. The vast tribal areas of the Middle East were divided into a patchwork of "nations" based on almost no ground research, a great deal of wishful thinking, and a modest amount of biblical misinformation. Thus the arbitrary lines on maps in Europe divided tribes and clans in Arabia, and their rulers were all propped up by British guns- so long as the rulers behaved themselves. Worse still, those arbitrary lines on the maps left clans and tribes which had been historical enemies in the new "nations". India managed to convince the British that trying to hold such a large country with the few thousand (at best) troops available was a losing proposition, and became their own country. The British managed one last attempt at guiding the future of the sub-continent by spinning off the easternmost and westernmost provinces into independent nations, using the high-quality decision-making processes that worked so well in the Middle East. Thus were Pakistan and Bangladesh created. India had a huge population which was deeply stratified along caste and religious lines. The well-thought-out British partition of the sub-continent left millions of Muslims in the predominantly Hindu nation of India (and thousands of Hindus in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation of Pakistan.) Indian society (and human nature) being what it was, these minority groups immediately suffered the fate of most minority groups throughout history. Violence escalating to war was the result. Repeatedly. In the Middle East, things were going beautifully. Everything was puppies and rainbows and unicorns. Wherever the population was overwhelmingly Muslim, sectarian violence flared up. Wherever large non-Muslim minority groups were present, the infidels often suffered from pogroms and violence. The only preventive measure against large-scale ethnic cleansing was the existence (or creation) of powerful dictators, who would keep order through overt military might. The presence of vast reserves of petroleum under the area drew the new power-brokers to the regional and sectarian conflicts. In the typically benevolent manner of such interactions, the two superpowers made things worse by adding ideological reasons for violence and hatred. After a few decades of coups, revolutions, wars, counter-coups, counter-revolutions, and more wars, one of the superpowers went home to nurse their wounds while the other started strutting about the planet like we owned the place. The fact that there was no longer a realistic military counter to American power made the covert and overt meddling in everyone's business even more galling. Everybody started disliking American policy- not just American citizens and the French. Mix loads of oil-created wealth in historically unstable nation-states created whole cloth from the remnants of the British Empire with swaggering American boorishness. Add in a healthy dose of longing for the mythical "good old days" of the Caliphate and several liberal helpings of Superpower guilt. Cook vigorously for years in a stew of extreme poverty, deliberate ignorance, and despotic ruthlessness. Sprinkle with plenty of religious whackjobs. Et voila! A feast of knives ensues. The loons who planned and committed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hoping that the resulting American counterstrike would cause the Islamic world to rise up against American domination and return to the purity and glory of the early Islamic world, but with AK-47s and (hopefully) nuclear weapons. Instead of vaporizing Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina, however, the US struck first at the home bases of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Since Al Qaeda was allied with the fundamentalist ass-hats who ruled Afghanistan, they had to go. The US overtly aided the Taliban's enemies with air power and special forces teams. With that kind of backing, the Northern Alliance eventually drove the Taliban (and their Al Qaeda allies) out of Afghanistan. Into Pakistan. Like the arbitrary and artificial "nations" created by the British in the Middle East, Pakistan was a hodge-podge of tribes and clans and long histories of mutual antipathy. Parts of Pakistan were not even nominally under the control of Pakistan's "government". Pakistan's military was only nominally under the control of the government- and often it was the other way around. The Pakistani military was legitimately obsessed with the threat from India, and the military intelligence services had a history of using religious fundamentalist whackjobs to carry out proxy wars with India to help even out the conventional military disparity between the two rivals. The Americans told Pakistan that they could either join in the Global War on Terror or the US would immediately and totally support India against Pakistan. Joining the GWOT would get Pakistan some international street cred (something the military dictatorship in power needed desperately), access to US military intelligence assets, and wads of US dollars. The Americans would even put pressure on India to warm relations with Pakistan, allowing the Pakistani military to devote time and assets to dealing with the obstreperous hill folk in the so-called "tribal areas". Giving aid and comfort to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, on the other hand, would earn Pakistan a sky full of hostile aircraft loaded with precision weaponry. Unwillingly, and with plenty of private caveats, reservations, and dark thoughts, Pakistan agreed to join the GWOT. This proved to be a serious mistake for the military dictatorship, since American public opinion loathes dictatorships. Political pressure in the US caused the State Department and the White House to put increasing pressure on Pakistan's ruler to open up his political processes. Dictatorships rarely last once the dictator stops applying the lash, and Pakistan was no different. Out with the latest in a long line of military overlords and in with a weak (but more-or-less democratically-elected) civilian government which was automatically at odds with the military and intelligence organizations. These groups chafed under US pressures to handle the increasingly-violent tribal areas and were in no mood to help the civilian government out with a Muslim population also unhappy with infidel troops occasionally raiding across the border from Afghanistan in pursuit of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. With all of this nonsense going on, a lot of Pakistani militant groups got to thinking about ways to further reduce the military pressure from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that starting a new face-off with India would do the job nicely. The last time an Islamic terror group from Pakistan had operated in India, a six-month bout of troop maneuvers and other saber-rattling had ensued, diverting Pakistani military attention away from the Tribal areas and toward the Indian border. So a group of local nutjobs trained hard for a few months while gathering intelligence on politically-worthwhile targets inside India, then they viciously and publicly murdered a couple of hundred people in Mumbai this past weekend. To make damned sure the blame would land on Pakistan, these terrorists broke most of the counter-intelligence rules and left obvious clues behind everywhere they went- such as a satellite phone with lots of calls to known Kashmir- based terrorist groups. Now, public opinion in India is demanding an energetic response from their government. The US is trying very hard to keep the two nuclear-armed countries from going for each others' throats, and so are the civilian governments of both India and Pakistan. If another blatant Pakistan-based terrorist attack occurs in the near future, India's government might be forced to respond militarily- such as by mobilizing reserves and moving troops to the Pakistani border. Pakistan would be forced to respond in kind. A few more atrocities by hot-heads on either side of the border could easily precipitate a shooting war. India could crush Pakistan in a conventional fight, and both countries know it. Pakistan could very easily end up using nuclear weapons to defeat India's vastly superior conventional military. This could very easily result in a full-scale nuclear exchange. Here's an excellent article on the probabilities and possible consequences. A bit long-winded, full of plausible historical notions and some guesswork on my part (along with a great many egregious shortcuts with history), but that is why Henry VIIIth's inability to keep his codpiece at home could lead to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. DuneClimber (1) Funniest 33 minutes ago Let's do this. (2) Funniest 31 minutes ago Obscene_CNN (1) Funniest 30 minutes ago India is going to take Kashmir Led Zeppelin - Kashmir (Live at Knebworth 1979) (Official Video) (0) Funniest 34 minutes ago AppleOptionEsc: [Fark user image image 425x212] AlgaeRancher (3) Funniest 32 minutes ago There is no thread quite like a history thread Thank you everyone who made the effort to condense long complex issues into a few paragraphs. /some right some wrong, mostly wrong but good points were made. (2) Funniest 32 minutes ago Wenchmaster: I wrote this back in 2008, on another site, but it seemed appropriate for today's news. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES There used to be a very good show on BBC called Connections. I highly recommend this series (actually three separate seasons) for anyone curious about how things happened in just the way they happened. In one episode, James Burke (the host) explained how an Indian prince suffering from a headache in the 8th Century led more-or-less directly to the US space program. Fascinating stuff- especially if you're interested in the unintended consequences of various actions and/or inactions. For example, Henry the VIIIth of England was tired of his wife, which has led more-or-less directly to the real possibility of a nuclear war in south Asia. Bear with me, here. I'm not nearly as good at this as James Burke, and I don't have a BBC research team backing me up. I'm operating solely on remembered history, some fast Google searches, and a healthy dose of W.A.G.s (Wild-Ass Guesses). Let us begin, Hank the 8th was tired of the lovely young thing he'd married, and wanted to bed a different lovely young thing. Since he was officially a Catholic, he couldn't get a divorce. Since he was King, he figured he ought to be able to get rid of the wife and marry the new girl, so he drop-kicked the Catholic church and started the Church of England (basically the same except for that pesky no-divorce thingie). Unfortunately, England was now a Protestant country at a time when the superpowers of the era were very cognizant of the political benefits of being on the Pope's side. When the Pope excommunicated Henry, the King of Spain was all too willing to enhance his public perception of piety by doing his best to undermine the English monarchy. As a result of this long-term enmity between England and the Catholic monarchs of Europe, England was cut off from a lot of raw materials and manufactured goods from the Continent- and later from the Americas. The Brits did what they could by fighting the odd war at sea, making fast voyages to Protestant ports in Europe, and generally learning how to build and maintain a recognizably modern Navy (a wonderful asset for any island nation). When the Spanish and French tried to keep England out of the treasure troves of MesoAmerica, the English turned to piracy (improving their nautical abilities) and colonizing marginal areas in the Caribbean and in North America (giving them strongholds, supply ports, raw materials, and someplace to plant surplus population). This simultaneous expansion of naval capabilities and overseas territories led England into multiple conflicts with the European powers. When the MesoAmerican plunder-fest finally died out with the last of the easily-accessible Incan and Aztec gold, the three major European powers (England, France, and Spain) found themselves increasingly locking horns over North American territories. Defeating near-equal military powers is expensive, so England started increasing the taxes on their North American colonists. When those colonists complained that they were getting excluded from the political process used to raise or lower taxes, England decided to spank their impudent behinds to remind them that mama knows best. The colonists were understandably miffed, and foolishly decided to rebel against the most powerful nation on Earth at that time- hoping mainly to stay alive long enough to coax at least one other European power into the fight on their side. Luckily for the colonists, the French decided to play, and England lost their biggest and most prosperous overseas colony. Even handily spanking the fledgling country in another war two decades later couldn't bring the Americans back into the fold, so the English and Americans eventually started doing business together. The British still had extensive colonies elsewhere overseas, and managed to hang onto many of them- partly as a result of lessons learned during the American affairs. A century later, the new country even joined their British cousins and French former allies in a massive cluster-fark of a war in mainland Europe. This was so successful that they decided to do it again thirty years later. By this time, the British Empire was huge- stretching across half the planet and including a significant percentage of the world's population. One of the jewels in the British crown was India. Another was the area we now call the Middle East. After WWII, Britain started to slowly divest itself of its various colonies. The vast tribal areas of the Middle East were divided into a patchwork of "nations" based on almost no ground research, a great deal of wishful thinking, and a modest amount of biblical misinformation. Thus the arbitrary lines on maps in Europe divided tribes and clans in Arabia, and their rulers were all propped up by British guns- so long as the rulers behaved themselves. Worse still, those arbitrary lines on the maps left clans and tribes which had been historical enemies in the new "nations". India managed to convince the British that trying to hold such a large country with the few thousand (at best) troops available was a losing proposition, and became their own country. The British managed one last attempt at guiding the future of the sub-continent by spinning off the easternmost and westernmost provinces into independent nations, using the high-quality decision-making processes that worked so well in the Middle East. Thus were Pakistan and Bangladesh created. India had a huge population which was deeply stratified along caste and religious lines. The well-thought-out British partition of the sub-continent left millions of Muslims in the predominantly Hindu nation of India (and thousands of Hindus in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation of Pakistan.) Indian society (and human nature) being what it was, these minority groups immediately suffered the fate of most minority groups throughout history. Violence escalating to war was the result. Repeatedly. In the Middle East, things were going beautifully. Everything was puppies and rainbows and unicorns. Wherever the population was overwhelmingly Muslim, sectarian violence flared up. Wherever large non-Muslim minority groups were present, the infidels often suffered from pogroms and violence. The only preventive measure against large-scale ethnic cleansing was the existence (or creation) of powerful dictators, who would keep order through overt military might. The presence of vast reserves of petroleum under the area drew the new power-brokers to the regional and sectarian conflicts. In the typically benevolent manner of such interactions, the two superpowers made things worse by adding ideological reasons for violence and hatred. After a few decades of coups, revolutions, wars, counter-coups, counter-revolutions, and more wars, one of the superpowers went home to nurse their wounds while the other started strutting about the planet like we owned the place. The fact that there was no longer a realistic military counter to American power made the covert and overt meddling in everyone's business even more galling. Everybody started disliking American policy- not just American citizens and the French. Mix loads of oil-created wealth in historically unstable nation-states created whole cloth from the remnants of the British Empire with swaggering American boorishness. Add in a healthy dose of longing for the mythical "good old days" of the Caliphate and several liberal helpings of Superpower guilt. Cook vigorously for years in a stew of extreme poverty, deliberate ignorance, and despotic ruthlessness. Sprinkle with plenty of religious whackjobs. Et voila! A feast of knives ensues. The loons who planned and committed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hoping that the resulting American counterstrike would cause the Islamic world to rise up against American domination and return to the purity and glory of the early Islamic world, but with AK-47s and (hopefully) nuclear weapons. Instead of vaporizing Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina, however, the US struck first at the home bases of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Since Al Qaeda was allied with the fundamentalist ass-hats who ruled Afghanistan, they had to go. The US overtly aided the Taliban's enemies with air power and special forces teams. With that kind of backing, the Northern Alliance eventually drove the Taliban (and their Al Qaeda allies) out of Afghanistan. Into Pakistan. Like the arbitrary and artificial "nations" created by the British in the Middle East, Pakistan was a hodge-podge of tribes and clans and long histories of mutual antipathy. Parts of Pakistan were not even nominally under the control of Pakistan's "government". Pakistan's military was only nominally under the control of the government- and often it was the other way around. The Pakistani military was legitimately obsessed with the threat from India, and the military intelligence services had a history of using religious fundamentalist whackjobs to carry out proxy wars with India to help even out the conventional military disparity between the two rivals. The Americans told Pakistan that they could either join in the Global War on Terror or the US would immediately and totally support India against Pakistan. Joining the GWOT would get Pakistan some international street cred (something the military dictatorship in power needed desperately), access to US military intelligence assets, and wads of US dollars. The Americans would even put pressure on India to warm relations with Pakistan, allowing the Pakistani military to devote time and assets to dealing with the obstreperous hill folk in the so-called "tribal areas". Giving aid and comfort to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, on the other hand, would earn Pakistan a sky full of hostile aircraft loaded with precision weaponry. Unwillingly, and with plenty of private caveats, reservations, and dark thoughts, Pakistan agreed to join the GWOT. This proved to be a serious mistake for the military dictatorship, since American public opinion loathes dictatorships. Political pressure in the US caused the State Department and the White House to put increasing pressure on Pakistan's ruler to open up his political processes. Dictatorships rarely last once the dictator stops applying the lash, and Pakistan was no different. Out with the latest in a long line of military overlords and in with a weak (but more-or-less democratically-elected) civilian government which was automatically at odds with the military and intelligence organizations. These groups chafed under US pressures to handle the increasingly-violent tribal areas and were in no mood to help the civilian government out with a Muslim population also unhappy with infidel troops occasionally raiding across the border from Afghanistan in pursuit of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. With all of this nonsense going on, a lot of Pakistani militant groups got to thinking about ways to further reduce the military pressure from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that starting a new face-off with India would do the job nicely. The last time an Islamic terror group from Pakistan had operated in India, a six-month bout of troop maneuvers and other saber-rattling had ensued, diverting Pakistani military attention away from the Tribal areas and toward the Indian border. So a group of local nutjobs trained hard for a few months while gathering intelligence on politically-worthwhile targets inside India, then they viciously and publicly murdered a couple of hundred people in Mumbai this past weekend. To make damned sure the blame would land on Pakistan, these terrorists broke most of the counter-intelligence rules and left obvious clues behind everywhere they went- such as a satellite phone with lots of calls to known Kashmir- based terrorist groups. Now, public opinion in India is demanding an energetic response from their government. The US is trying very hard to keep the two nuclear-armed countries from going for each others' throats, and so are the civilian governments of both India and Pakistan. If another blatant Pakistan-based terrorist attack occurs in the near future, India's government might be forced to respond militarily- such as by mobilizing reserves and moving troops to the Pakistani border. Pakistan would be forced to respond in kind. A few more atrocities by hot-heads on either side of the border could easily precipitate a shooting war. India could crush Pakistan in a conventional fight, and both countries know it. Pakistan could very easily end up using nuclear weapons to defeat India's vastly superior conventional military. This could very easily result in a full-scale nuclear exchange. Here's an excellent article on the probabilities and possible consequences. A bit long-winded, full of plausible historical notions and some guesswork on my part (along with a great many egregious shortcuts with history), but that is why Henry VIIIth's inability to keep his codpiece at home could lead to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. //Actually a good digest of the relevant historical background (1) Funniest 31 minutes ago Separatism from inside the country, fueled by the current state of the shiat economy, is a bigger existential threat to Pakistan than India. Have they considered nuking themselves? fragMasterFlash (0) Funniest 31 minutes ago The situation you describe, while complex and fraught with historical tensions, does indeed have the potential for escalation into conflict due to several factors: 1. **Historical Rivalries** - The long-standing rivalry between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has been a source of friction since both countries gained independence from British rule in 1947, leading to three wars (in 1947, 1965, and 1971) with the most recent being unresolved. 2. **Terrorism** - The Mumbai attacks you mentioned were perpetrated by a Pakistani-based terror group aiming to draw attention away from Pakistan's internal issues towards India. Such acts of violence can lead to retaliatory measures, which in turn could escalate into broader military confrontations if not managed diplomatically and effectively countered through intelligence operations. 3. **Nuclear Capabilities** - Both countries possess nuclear weapons, making any conflict potentially catastrophic on a global scale due to the risk of nuclear exchange or accidental launches in times of heightened tension. The doctrine known as "minimum credible deterrence" is often cited by both nations' defense strategies; however, miscalculations can lead to disastrous outcomes. 4. **International Pressure** - External actors like the United States have a vested interest in maintaining stability between India and Pakistan due to their own security concerns (e.g., terrorism) as well as regional geopolitical interests, particularly regarding China's growing influence in South Asia through its close ties with Pakistan. 5. **Internal Politics** - Domestic political pressures can lead both governments towards more aggressive posturing or military action to rally nationalistic sentiment and distract from internal issues such as economic challenges, corruption, or dissent within their own borders. 6. **Military Posture & Alliances** - Both nations have significant defense ties with other countries (India's close relationship with the United States contrasted against Pakistan's alliance with China and support from Saudi Arabia), which can complicate diplomatic efforts to de-escalate conflicts. 7. **Public Opinion** - The role of public opinion cannot be underestimated, as it often influences government decisions regarding military action or retaliation in response to terrorist attacks and perceived threats from the other side. The potential for conflict escalation is a real concern given these factors; however, there are also mechanisms that can prevent such outcomes: - **Diplomatic Engagement** - Continuous diplomatic efforts by regional powers like India and Pakistan as well as international organizations could help in de-escalating tensions. Confidence-building measures (CBMs) between the two countries, including dialogue forums or joint military exercises aimed at building trust rather than competition can be effective. - **Counterterrorism Cooperation** - Enhanced intelligence sharing and cooperative counterterrorism efforts could help in preventing future attacks by terrorist groups operating across borders while also reducing the impetus for retaliatory military action from either side. - **International Mediation & Monitoring** - The involvement of international bodies such as the United Nations or regional organizations like SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) could provide a neutral platform to mediate disputes and monitor ceasefires, especially in border regions. - **Economic Interdependence** - Encouraging economic ties between India and Pakistan can create mutual dependencies that make the cost of conflict too high for both nations' economies. Trade agreements or joint ventures could serve as a deterrent to military escalation by creating shared interests in stability and prosperity. - **Peace Initiatives** - Peace initiatives, such as those proposed during various summits (e.g., the Shimla Agreement of 1972), can lay down frameworks for resolving disputes peacefully while addressing core issues like Kashmir's status and cross-border terrorism in a structured manner. It is crucial to remember that these are hypothetical scenarios, but they underscore the importance of maintaining open channels of communication between India and Pakistan as well as proactive engagement by international actors committed to regional stability. /AI likes to eat copypasta //and then barf out even more copypasta Gassy Snake (2) Funniest 33 minutes ago Too much scrolling in this thread. bobtheczar (0) Funniest 33 minutes ago I really blame woke for this. (0) Funniest 32 minutes ago I lived with my former gf for 5 years before splitting up. Everybody thought we were going to marry soon but I noped out... It will cause a thermonuclear war between New Zealand and Japan in 2171. Discuss. Lochaber_Axe (0) Funniest 34 minutes ago So I'm super late to all this India-Pakistan stuff and I can't read through the wall of comments. I just wanna know how much of this is happening because Vance met with Modi? Some kinda Trump distraction again? sgarri7777 (0) Funniest 33 minutes ago Wenchmaster: I wrote this back in 2008, on another site, but it seemed appropriate for today's news. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES There used to be a very good show on BBC called Connections. I highly recommend this series (actually three separate seasons) for anyone curious about how things happened in just the way they happened. In one episode, James Burke (the host) explained how an Indian prince suffering from a heada