Printable View
...move futher East!
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/21josy.htm
Please read through the feedback posts as well. All 11 pages!
Reservations :
1) Not sure as to its authenticity
2) A wee bit too early to take it as possible, for the US of A, even if it is considered prefferrable, by the US of A.
The US and UK already have Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
X
That's not really all that bad for India. It'll keep the Pakistani Terrorist border crossings in check. India will most definatly get some new state of the art air bases out of it regardless. Sounds like a good deal to me. IMHO the US should have had India's back years ago when they asked for help.
Turns out to be a 6 part expose!
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/21josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/22josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/23josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/24josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/25josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/26josy.htm
Only if India had supported this war. They could have emerged as winners.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
That's not really all that bad for India. It'll keep the Pakistani Terrorist border crossings in check. India will most definatly get some new state of the art air bases out of it regardless. Sounds like a good deal to me. IMHO the US should have had India's back years ago when they asked for help.
I would personally prefer if the US simply kept out of the whole mess, or if it did want to intervene, force the Pakistani government to put an end to the cross-border terrorism. Unfortunately, the US isn't going to pass up this opportunity to bring India under its control and also it's not doing anything to really curb the cross-border terrorism.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
That's not really all that bad for India. It'll keep the Pakistani Terrorist border crossings in check. India will most definatly get some new state of the art air bases out of it regardless. Sounds like a good deal to me. IMHO the US should have had India's back years ago when they asked for help.
.
I agree with you on that.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I would personally prefer if the US simply kept out of the whole mess, or if it did want to intervene, force the Pakistani government to put an end to the cross-border terrorism. Unfortunately, the US isn't going to pass up this opportunity to bring India under its control and also it's not doing anything to really curb the cross-border terrorism.
.
No one really wants to go to war. :rolleyes:Quote:
Only if India had supported this war. They could have emerged as winners.
how is this an expose??? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
Turns out to be a 6 part expose!
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/21josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/22josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/23josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/24josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/25josy.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/26josy.htm
I don't see anything wrong if the US tried to bring about peace. How will it be "intervenig"?? That's ridiculous. So if I guess the US's roadmap to peace between Israel and the palestinians also is "intervening", according to you honeybee??Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I would personally prefer if the US simply kept out of the whole mess, or if it did want to intervene, force the Pakistani government to put an end to the cross-border terrorism. Unfortunately, the US isn't going to pass up this opportunity to bring India under its control and also it's not doing anything to really curb the cross-border terrorism.
.
how and why the hell would the US bring India under its control?? That is again ridiculous.
I can understand how Indian's might be weary of any presence of foreign troops with their history of being a colony of the British. But the US is not a colonial power not like the French and the British were. It's mostly because of fear and I can't really blame them for that.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
I don't see anything wrong if the US tried to bring about peace. How will it be "intervenig"?? That's ridiculous. So if I guess the US's roadmap to peace between Israel and the palestinians also is "intervening", according to you honeybee??
how and why the hell would the US bring India under its control?? That is again ridiculous.
I think the US should try to bring about peace between India and Pakistan but somehow I don't think it will ever happen. Just as I don’t think Israel and Palestine will ever be at peace either. It really is a shame.
X
NB: All emphases are mineQuote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
how is this an expose??? :rolleyes:
sourceQuote:
expose
Expos'e \Ex`po`s['e]"\, n. [F., prop. p. p. of exposer. See Expose, v. t.] A formal recital or exposition of facts; exposure, or revelation, of something which some one wished to keep concealed.
;)
in the context you have used it, you are trying to say that those documents have exposed something which they haven't.Quote:
It will give the Indian Government a new tool to use in the fight against pakistani terrorists. Pakistan will realize that the US dosn't need Pakistan. With US troops in Afghanistan Iraq and India, that puts a whole lot of pressure on Pakistan to do the right thing and knock off sponsoring the terrorists. Plus the Indian Airforce will be getting one helluva shot in the arm with new US airforce technology. India's Airforce technology increasing 20 years worth "overnight" might make the pakistani government think twice about piessing India off any further. Something else you might want to remember. US companies are investing highly in Indian companies and subcontracting a hell of a lot of Tech work to India right now. It makes sense for both of us to protect our investments.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I would personally prefer if the US simply kept out of the whole mess, or if it did want to intervene, force the Pakistani government to put an end to the cross-border terrorism. Unfortunately, the US isn't going to pass up this opportunity to bring India under its control and also it's not doing anything to really curb the cross-border terrorism.
.
The US doesn't want India to be as powerful as the US is today. We were denied the technology to develop cryogenic engines or even a supercomputer. A country like Pakistan would likely have smugged these things in from another country, like it did with North Korea, but our scientists have done it by themselves. This attribute must be a cause of concern for the US.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
I don't see anything wrong if the US tried to bring about peace. How will it be "intervenig"?? That's ridiculous. So if I guess the US's roadmap to peace between Israel and the palestinians also is "intervening", according to you honeybee??
how and why the hell would the US bring India under its control?? That is again ridiculous.
.
I have my own doubts over whether the US is a colonial power or not, but that's not the point right now.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
I can understand how Indian's might be weary of any presence of foreign troops with their history of being a colony of the British. But the US is not a colonial power not like the French and the British were. It's mostly because of fear and I can't really blame them for that.
I think the US should try to bring about peace between India and Pakistan but somehow I don't think it will ever happen. Just as I don’t think Israel and Palestine will ever be at peace either. It really is a shame.
X
The biggest problem is the continued support of the US to the Pakistani government, in money, in weaponry and in writing off loans. It looks like the Paksitani government survives entirely off the US paycheck, and half of that goes to fund the militant bases in Pakistan, which operate across the border in India. This gives rise to a situation where the US is indirectly funding the cross-border terrorism. While this may in some cases be unintentional, I doubt if the CIA is unaware of the involvement of the Pakistani ISI with the militant groups. I definitely smell rot in this continual aid. The US government has never threatened Pakistan to end the infiltration or the aid will stop. Instead it's showering them with sops.
Why? ;)
.
Permanent military bases in a foriegn soveriegn soil is wrong. PERIOD Only a person who has the right to be the elected leader of a nation can have the right to own arms in that nation.
No amount of justification will make me change that view.
You want to help us? Please do. Our sincere thanks. You want to conduct business with us? Please do. Our full payments. You want to protect us from our enemies? Please do. Our most deep felt gratitude. You want to live with us? Please do. Here is our list of rules and regulations and laws and customs and traditions. Welcome to our home. You want a permanent presence in India? You are very welcome to become an Indian citizen. You want to have the right to spill blood on our land? Kindly leave our premises immediately.
You do have a good point in the US investments in the Indian companies, but that does not mean the US wants India to be an ally, for e.g. the US isn't treating India like Israel.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
It will give the Indian Government a new tool to use in the fight against pakistani terrorists. Pakistan will realize that the US dosn't need Pakistan. With US troops in Afghanistan Iraq and India, that puts a whole lot of pressure on Pakistan to do the right thing and knock off sponsoring the terrorists. Plus the Indian Airforce will be getting one helluva shot in the arm with new US airforce technology. India's Airforce technology increasing 20 years worth "overnight" might make the pakistani government think twice about piessing India off any further. Something else you might want to remember. US companies are investing highly in Indian companies and subcontracting a hell of a lot of Tech work to India right now. It makes sense for both of us to protect our investments.
I am not saying the US should send sophisticated and/or destructive weapons to India, but it shouldn't do so with Pakistan.
When you are indulging into covert operations such as the cross-border terrorism, you don't need the might of the opposing forces to deter you. India would never go the Israeli way of entering the Pakistani territory and punishing them for sending in terrorists. This gives a very easy opportunity to the Pakistani government to nurture as many terrorist outfits as it wants, train them and then send them across the border to wrech havoc. Plus it can abuse the Indian government in the name of human rights. Therefore, as long as India's superiour military strength is not put to use like Israel does, Pakistan won't stop its activities. And that is why the pressure has to come from the US which is virtually in control of the Pakistani economy and to a large extent the politics.
However, as I have mentioned above, given the right conditions, India has the potential to overthrow the US as the superpower of the world. Imagine even today the US is planning curbing of outsourcing to India because of low costs and good quality. Cryogenic engine and supercomputers are examples that if the US refuses us something which we want, we are able to get it on our own, and not through shady deals and means. The high number of software, medical and teaching professionals from India migrating to and settling in the US indicates we are a notch superior to them in many respects. And given these circumstances, it's only natural that in order to preserve its own superpower status, the US is not serious in restraining Pakistan from its terrorist activities. Most of India's time and energy will thus be engaged in keeping the Pakistani nuisance to a minimum, fighting off the propaganda war.
.
I think that's an important correction. I am not sure I would personally mind if a US citizen, or for that matter any foreigner, came to India and cut up his wrists. Not that that kind of a thing should happen to anyone, but I would just shrug it away ;)Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
... You want to have the right to spill our blood on our land? Kindly leave our premises immediately.
.
The US really dosn't do all that much for Israel other than bidding on arms contracts. France and germany are underbidding us on most of them now any way.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
You do have a good point in the US investments in the Indian companies, but that does not mean the US wants India to be an ally, for e.g. the US isn't treating India like Israel.
Relations with pakistan were necessary in removing the Taliban and Usamas dogs. (Unfortunatly) Personally, I think the US should have not stopped at the Afghan border and leveled pakistan too.Quote:
I am not saying the US should send sophisticated and/or destructive weapons to India, but it shouldn't do so with Pakistan.
When you are indulging into covert operations such as the cross-border terrorism, you don't need the might of the opposing forces to deter you. India would never go the Israeli way of entering the Pakistani territory and punishing them for sending in terrorists. This gives a very easy opportunity to the Pakistani government to nurture as many terrorist outfits as it wants, train them and then send them across the border to wrech havoc. Plus it can abuse the Indian government in the name of human rights. Therefore, as long as India's superiour military strength is not put to use like Israel does, Pakistan won't stop its activities. And that is why the pressure has to come from the US which is virtually in control of the Pakistani economy and to a large extent the politics.
True, India would (debatable) never go the Israeli way of entering Pakistan, but the Pakistani government knows that the US has no problem whatsoever going in if a government is sponsoring terrorists. I'm betting that keeps Pakistan quiet. Of course there is no way to know the answer to this.
Overthrow,Not a chance in hell, the us is impossible to invade conventionally and had too many ICBS to overthrow with WMDs. Become just as powerfull(military) Very Unlikley in the next 20 - 30 years. The US dumps billions a year into military spending. It has been doing this for quite some time. India has some catching up to do first. Just as powerfull economically. Most definatly It is possible.Quote:
However, as I have mentioned above, given the right conditions, India has the potential to overthrow the US as the superpower of the world. Imagine even today the US is planning curbing of outsourcing to India because of low costs and good quality.
It's more like American Labor unions, that have destroyed the US job market, are lobbying to curb outsourcing. Labor unions don't run the nation, the corporations do. This is good for US companies and US employees or investors alike. It will not happen. There is too much open work and not enough money to pay people to do it in the US right now. Outsourcing is a necessity. You can thank Bill Clinton for that.
I'd be more than willing to bet that the reason the technology was not given to India by the US was that India didn't want to pay the price tag put on it by the US, as opposed to the US trying to keep India from being a superpower. It was most likley cheaper for india to develop those technologys on their own and that is why it happened that way. Let me make this perfectly clear to you. Indian Workers in the US are in no way superior to US workers and the US workers are in no way Superior to Indian workers. I have managed workers from both countries. The only thing different about Indian workers that bugs the heck out of me is you guys talk so damn fast when you get excited.Quote:
Cryogenic engine and supercomputers are examples that if the US refuses us something which we want, we are able to get it on our own, and not through shady deals and means. The high number of software, medical and teaching professionals from India migrating to and settling in the US indicates we are a notch superior to them in many respects. And given these circumstances, it's only natural that in order to preserve its own superpower status, the US is not serious in restraining Pakistan from its terrorist activities. Most of India's time and energy will thus be engaged in keeping the Pakistani nuisance to a minimum, fighting off the propaganda war.
Just a hunch but I think you will be seeing quite a few changes in Pakistan over the next few years as a direct result of being surrounded by the US.
The US does also veto the UN resolutions :( But that has been repeatedly stated over the recent months here.
As for a change in Pakistan, I don't think that's going to happen. Maybe a cosmetic change to show the world they are eager to resolve the dispute by talks, but no fundamental difference.
If you have gone through the news of the recent elections in Pakistan, you will have noticed that the government in Pakistan is not an elected one but a "selected" one. Also in many areas, specially the border areas close to Afghanistan, Muslim fundamentalist parties have come to power in the provinces. Plus, General Musharraf is not ready to give up his special privileges which he had acquired by bringing about arbitrary constitutional reforms. My guess is Musharraf knows Pakistan cannot turn its back to the US, and so doesn't want to give up his powers, so he can still save the nation. If he gives up his powers, and if the fundamentalist parties come to power in the nation, the US will be driven out, opposed, and then the US might dispose of Pakistan like the Taliban and Saddam. It's this fear that's forcing Musharraf to hold the reins, but at the same time, since the popular sentiment is against the US, the fundamentalists are sure to try everything they can to upset these plans. That includes an active support to militancy.
.
.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Overthrow,Not a chance in hell, the us is impossible to invade conventionally and had too many ICBS to overthrow with WMDs. Become just as powerfull(military) Very Unlikley in the next 20 - 30 years. The US dumps billions a year into military spending. It has been doing this for quite some time. India has some catching up to do first. Just as powerfull economically. Most definatly It is possible.
Economic power does mean something ;)
I'd be more than willing to bet that the reason the technology was not given to India by the US was that India didn't want to pay the price tag put on it by the US, as opposed to the US trying to keep India from being a superpower. It was most likley cheaper for india to develop those technologys on their own and that is why it happened that way. Let me make this perfectly clear to you. Indian Workers in the US are in no way superior to US workers and the US workers are in no way Superior to Indian workers. I have managed workers from both countries. The only thing different about Indian workers that bugs the heck out of me is you guys talk so damn fast when you get excited.
:D Actually as far as the cryogenic engine technology goes, India was to acquire it from Russia, not the US, but the US pressurised Russia to abandon the effort. That's why I don't think it's about the price.
I agree. One problem though. If the fundamentalists get control of pakistan before the US levels them it is going to be messy. The fundamentalists in pakistan should have been removed at the same time as the Taliban. Bad move on the US' part. It is naive to think that Musharraf's days in Pakistan are not numbered.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
.......It's this fear that's forcing Musharraf to hold the reins, but at the same time, since the popular sentiment is against the US, the fundamentalists are sure to try everything they can to upset these plans. That includes an active support to militancy.
.
Yep, should've been nice for us too. Actually I suspect many of us are anti-US policies precisely because the US has nurtured Pakistan so long.
Going by the examples of Zulficar Ali Bhutto and General Zia-ul-Haq, I won't be surprised if Musharraf or Jamali meets a similar fate...
.
Or just a notch poorer, lol.Quote:
The high number of software, medical and teaching professionals from India migrating to and settling in the US indicates we are a notch superior to them in many respects.
:rolleyes: Even by economic standards of poverty, I don't think your statement holds much validity :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by ralph
Or just a notch poorer, lol.
And maybe you are attaching more importance to money, adhering to the typical image of the Western world. I wonder if you remember Swami Vivekanand's speech in Chicago almost a century back, and whether you realize why people applauded at his first sentence, "My brothers and sisters ...."
.
A few months back there was a drive from British schools to recruit teachers and nurses from India. An average Indian kid is able to reach at least the graduation level in formal education. An average Indian grandfather does not need to rely upon some welfare scheme after he retires.Quote:
Originally posted by ralph
Or just a notch poorer, lol.
A few things in our culture are changing for bad, but that's where people are copying the Western culture :rolleyes:
.