Yet one of our own, on another thread complains about HRC not being evenhanded in brokering a deal between India and Pakistan.
This is not rocket science. When you want US-backing for an agenda that furthers India's interests (or the interests of anyone else, for that matter), you give $$$$ to American politicians or their spouses who are building presidential libraries and when they win, you later call in favors. Obviously, she didn't win the primary, but she will have a very important office in Obama's administration. So no, sorry, but I do NOT believe that she will be evenhanded.
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonplz
This is not rocket science. When you want US-backing for an agenda that furthers India's interests (or the interests of anyone else, for that matter), you give $$$$ to American politicians or their spouses who are building presidential libraries and when they win, you later call in favors. Obviously, she didn't win the primary, but she will have a very important office in Obama's administration. So no, sorry, but I do NOT believe that she will be evenhanded.
So she might push on Pakistan a bit harder? Even if she were to be even handed she would have to call a spade a spade, unless, of course she is a Nixon in skirt. I really don;t see how it changes anything. As far as Kashmir issue is concerned, India has always maintained that it's an issue to be decided bilaterally. Despite Pakistan's attempts to internationalise Kashmir, no one has taken the bait. There is no role for the U.S. there. Despite historical Republican enchantment with Pakistan, Bush has been quite chummy with, possibly due to some wrong reasons (neo-cons), as well as right.
Even if India were to handover Kashmir to Pakistan, it would not eliminate Pakistan backed terrorism. After Kashmir, Pakistan will revive support for Khalistani dreamers. I really don't see how it changes the equation.
Translation. Even a neutral hand by the U.S. goes in India's favour. Concerns about Hillary favouring India are inconsequential.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMSN
This is not believable, since India is totally dominated by Hindus, both politically and economically. You are simply a bigot, a fact reinforced every time you say, "these people".
How so? There have been Muslims in every cabinet since the independence. In a span of 56 years, three, out of a total of 12 presidents have been Muslim. Have you got any facts to back up your assertion?
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
How so? There have been Muslims in every cabinet since the independence. In a span of 56 years, three, out of a total of 12 presidents have been Muslim. Have you got any facts to back up your assertion?
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMSN
Even if you find that report credible, can you not read? The article casts serious doubt on the claim that the Pakistani government was involved in this. So why would you want India to get into another pointless war? And why is a backwards, mountainous piece of land that important to either side?
So stupid.
You should not be asking this question. There is noting in the article that supports your assertion. I agree with you that a full fledged war is not a solution. We have to wait and see, how serious our own Government is about the global war on terror.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMSN
The coalition forces in Afghanistan are under attack almost daily. Why do you think the forces there have control? They quite obviously do not.
How is India supposed to destroy Pakistan's army and nukes? I'm sure Pakistan would, just as India would, use those nukes if a total loss is imminent. Then no one would win. War is a stupid idea, as shown by the results of earlier conflicts there. Was anything ever solved? Not on your life.
If India were to try to destroy Pakistan, I would guess that the US would tell them very firmly "no". As would China. Yours is a violent, simplistic and quite sick pipe dream.
We boast, rightfully, of successes in convincing South Africa, and Libya to give up nuclear option. Many Pakistanis I have talked to believe that the ultimate aim of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan/Pakistan is to dispossess Pakistan of its nuclear weapons. Funny neo-cons feel that shouold be pour goal. In spite of ISI, the army and dozens of Pakistan based, and ISI supported terrorist outfits obsessed with India, substantial progress had been made in India Pakistan relations, just like progress made under Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee in 1999. Musharraf's Kargil misadventure scuttled that in the same vane as the current setback to the positive developments in India Pak relationship.
India and Pakistan have nothing to gain by fighting with each other, and everything to gain by developing trade between the two. Why should we not use our billons that we give to Pakistan as a leverage and entice Pakistan into giving upm nuclear options. If anyone thinks that India will gobble up Pakistan if Pakistan has no nukes, think again. Why would India want Islamic extremists within its borders?
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Late reaction there (41 days)?
I had seen this particular post but didn't respond to it right away as I was travelling. There were som many issues to be addressed that this one was pushed back in priority.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
India and Pakistan have nothing to gain by fighting with each other, and everything to gain by developing trade between the two. Why should we not use our billons that we give to Pakistan as a leverage and entice Pakistan into giving upm nuclear options.
Make Israel, France, India and the UK go first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaatri
If anyone thinks that India will gobble up Pakistan if Pakistan has no nukes, think again. Why would India want Islamic extremists within its borders?
Gosh, there must be a reason, or else Kashmir would by now have been a sovereign state.
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
If anyone thinks that India will gobble up Pakistan if Pakistan has no nukes, think again. Why would India want Islamic extremists within its borders?
You seem to be forgetting that :
1. China is closed by and like it or not India would like to be seen going head to head against either China and/or Russia ( though Putin may be in dire strait right now since the oligarchs are losing big on the financial mkt and the mafioso that protect them can be lured away - that's another story)
2. Believe it or not , look at the foreign policy of the US - go as far east boys (to expand its influence into the Russian, Chinese and Iranian backyards in Central Asia) - whether it is a Rep or Dem administration and India may be happy to facilitate that so that it can partake in the energy/resources plans that the US has for that part of the world.
Extremism or radicalism whether in-house or outsourced can be dealt with ( always with the help of dear Uncle) . What would happen if the nationalists like the BJP do get power- like it or not - there are rogue Indian politicos ? or God forbids someone like Modi
The rightwing nationalists still believe in Hindustan Motherland and some go back as far as the Mahabharata - You are more knowledgeable on the history of India than the neophyte yours truly but, HISTORY has taught us that there is always a group of human beings who wants " a pure ethnic nation" or motherland. You may not believe it , but we have read about it, our parents have lived or experienced it , we are seeing it these days and our kids may experience it or live it in the future. That's the nature of the beast.
Horrible article in the Daily Telegraph today containing transcripts from the calls the terrorists were making back to the L-e-T leadership in Pakistan during the attack. Very, very chilling.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenbel
Horrible article in the Daily Telegraph today containing transcripts from the calls the terrorists were making back to the L-e-T leadership in Pakistan during the attack. Very, very chilling.
I was looking for them in the U.S. midia but was unable to find them. I finally found them at a website of South Indians newspaper.
It was chilling. The L-e-T leaders wanted to hear the sounds through the cell phones.
In another thread, someone thinks they were Pakistani freedom fighters.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
In another thread, someone thinks they were Pakistani freedom fighters.
you mean, "Pakistani mercenaries fighting on behalf of the cause of a vote on the question of muslim majority Kashmir's status". Likely he hasn't read the transcripts (as I just did).
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonplz
Make Israel, France, India and the UK go first.
If you are talking about the double standards of the nuclear states, I agree with you. Why should the U.S. Russia and China be excluded? If you look at it from the point of responsibility, no other country, but Pakistan has been in the habit of consistently using terrorism as its foreign policy and then denying it. There is nothing wrong with Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons they can show they are capable of behaving like a responsible nation. Are you forgetting AQ Khan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonplz
Gosh, there must be a reason, or else Kashmir would by now have been a sovereign state.
Gosh Kashmir never was Pakistani territory. Only the extremists in Pakistan dream of ruling over the whole of control. Most people in India, and Pakistan, including their, leaders are willing to let the LoC be the international border between India and Pakistan. If you have been paying attention, J&K recently had election with a turnout of over 65%. National Conference, led by Omar Abdullah has come to power. Guess what that means? That separatists have no support among the people of Kashmir.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
