Conventional Warfare...
Okay, so what is Conventional Warfare?
It is the so-called "ethical" way of fighting a war -- no use of chemical or biological weapons - just plain old guns, artillery and bombs.
This "war-ethic" came into being during the Second World War, when there was the real danger of Germany making use of Chemical and Biological Weapons to its advantage. (I guess everyone must have read at some time or the other about the kind of experiments the German "doctors" carried out on Jews and other POWs)

It is supposed to be a way of giving both the sides an equal chance.
Now isnt THAT ridiculous?
What with all the superior firepower of the West? Can there be any "fair" wars so to speak? I mean what chance do you have if your enemy can scalp you before he is within your firing range?

And where was this thinking when the Westerners were using guns against their to-be-colonised nations? Did the Indian rulers stand a chance against the British and French armies? Can you fight sword to bullet? And still they did.
They lost, but they did fight like heroes.

Guns were non-conventional then. They are not now. Chemical and Biological weapons are. If the west could use guns in the past, why cant other nations use today's non-conventional weapons? Just because it will be to the great disadvantage of the West? (the weapons industry is HUGE) Just because it will once and for all lose its supremacy?

We should not have wars at all. But in case we do, then there should be no double standards.

The Indian government takes great pride in being a hardcore supporter of the no-first-use kind of policy. Take the Kargil war for instance (that reminds me - I still have to see LOC)....well, it wasnt even declared a war -- just a "war-like" situation. They were more worried about what the international community would think - than about the young soldiers dying on the front. Who cares? They are the army. Thats their job. Thats what they are paid for. Wouldnt it be much easier to just gas those infiltrators out? No sir, you have to climb up that trecherous terrain under an unrelenting rain of bullets, and push them out with bare hands.
Hats off to the soldiers. They did that. They did it at a huge cost of life.
And to add to it, they were not even allowed to proceed further and finish them off once and for all. "You have to maintain the sanctity of the Line of Control".
It matters squat if the enemy does not.

Would the US have tolerated such a move by an enemy? Would they have taken the death of so may soldiers lightly?
But we have an "image" to maintain. Slap me on one cheek and I will offer the other. I have infinite patience. I have an army that is willing to die for me, and
I will make it do just that. But I will keep my head held high with the belief that others will respect me for my obedience.

You think I am emotional? You're bloody right I am.