http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazi...shmir_sb1.html
Printable View
background on Kashmir: http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazi...5/kashmir.html
As long as the US doesn't abandon Pakistan the situation in Kashmir will never improve. Now the US even acknowledges Dawood Ibrahim as an international terrorist, when it itself went through Sept 11 attacks. It didn't pay heed to India's arguments back then, and even now Pakistan is its buddy in fighting terrorism. There couldn't be a bigger irony than that....
.
Abandoning Pakistan could be a really bad idea for the US, despite your arguments. Pakistan has nukes (not many, but it only takes one), and fundamentalists. It's not a good combination to sit back and watch.
Good point, but then it's the US who turned a blind eye to Pakistan acquiring all those weapons, maybe even helped it. It's public knowledge that Pakistan acquired missiles from North Korea in exchange for nuclear technology. The US is pissed off about North Korea having nukes, but it's pals with the nation who sold them the nukes. Isn't that a bit more than ironic? Despite verbal statements (and they too are rare) I don't think the US has ever taken any solid actions to curb Pakistan's cross-border infiltration. The only logical explanation of all these years of the US policy on South Asia seems to be that the US wants the region to be instable, so the countries will rely heavily on the US to protect themselves, giving the US a tremendous military, political and economic dominance in the region. Now that India is emerging as a strong economy, the US wants to penetrate the Indian markets, it wants to exploit the technological advances in India, use the skilled and cheap labour, and also dominate it so it can exploit it further. In order to force the Indian government to bow, they could be using Pakistan as a constant threat to keep India busy.Quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Abandoning Pakistan could be a really bad idea for the US, despite your arguments. Pakistan has nukes (not many, but it only takes one), and fundamentalists. It's not a good combination to sit back and watch.
When Musharraf says only the Pakistani army is capable of hunting down the Al Qaeda fugitives in the mountain ranges on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and considering the fact that the Pakistani army is doing precious little about the job, either the US government is stupid to believe them, or the US doesn't want them to move.
.
Or the US has no leverage, and no answers. We aided Pakistan for a long time, and will continue to do so, if for no other reason than that we don't know what else to do.
At this point, what choice do we have? We don't like the situation, but we don't know how to solve it. Perhaps we did create it, but that's irrelevant now. We don't have an answer.
LMAO!! your arguments never fail to crack me up honeybee. You never fail to bash the US. Those are the most pathetic "reasons" you put forward.
If Pakistan funded schools, colleges, roads, etc. instead of some ****ed up mullahs, their economy could progress. I remember I went to India in 1995 then again last year. Everything is changing so fast. The only thing that hasn't is the anti-american attitude (eg: honeybee). Talked to many people during my visits. Anti-american attitude isn't as extreme as the middle-east, but it would compare closely to the type of attitude that exists in europe.
I don't mind bashing the US where they are wrong. I know you will use it to entertain yourself, and I have no objection to that.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
LMAO!! your arguments never fail to crack me up honeybee. You never fail to bash the US. Those are the most pathetic "reasons" you put forward.
If Pakistan funded schools, colleges, roads, etc. instead of some ****ed up mullahs, their economy could progress. I remember I went to India in 1995 then again last year. Everything is changing so fast. The only thing that hasn't is the anti-american attitude (eg: honeybee). Talked to many people during my visits. Anti-american attitude isn't as extreme as the middle-east, but it would compare closely to the type of attitude that exists in europe.
Quite frankly I simply don't understand why on earth the US is actually funding Pakistan. I haven't seen a single report in any newspaper saying all that aid is being put to constructive use. Also the fact that much of that aid is simply military equipment.
The Indian government has traditionally been non-aggressive (mind well, some Indians don't quite approve of that, but so far the situation has been satisfactory), because many a people here still believe aggression or violence doesn't solve anything, unlike Israel. If India did want to create trouble for Pakistan, you would be having something worse than the Israel Palestine conflict, and the whole credit for this not happening must go to the Indian government. You are yourself acknowledging that everything in India is changing so fast (and from the tone of your statement, I think you mean it's changing for better). At the same time you also forget that the only thing not changed so far is American aid to Pakistan, despite innumerable proofs given of Pakistan's cross-border terrorism. You should recall statements made by the US ambassadors, foreign secretaries and other government officials in the past where they have acknowledged that Pakistan is encouraging such activities and has not done anything to stop it. And when the US has got the guts to invade Iraq on not even so much as one credible shred of evidence, I find it weird when the US actually does nothing to prevent Pakistan from funding all the anti-India militancy. I am also surprised that you don't find that mysterious.
.
Believe it or not, I actually agree with HB on this one.
Americas support for Pakistan I can understand in the short term but what happens after that.
Powder keg comes to mind.
It does, and it's a most disturbing image.
It's not what honeybee is saying that I disagree with, its the way honeybee is putting it. He is basically saying that the US is purposely overlooking pakistan funding terrorism so that India can be destabilised. That is ridiculousQuote:
Originally posted by venerable bede
Believe it or not, I actually agree with HB on this one.
Pakistan vis-a-vis the US of A? Not too worried as it is a foregone conclusion. It is the (statistical) certainity after the invasion and regime change in Pakistan, that I am wooried about. It would be India's turn then :eek:
Taken from my post here . The text in bold are mine in response to a previous poster.
Quote:
Lets see if I can dissect this little diatribe.
So Saddam’s only crime was saying no to the international community huh? I guess attacking Iran, invading Kuwait, gassing the Kurds, slaughtering the Shiite’s, shooting skuds at Israel, torturing, raping, and murdering his own people, and defying 17 UN resolutions is nothing to you? Someone needs to open their eyes and see what a monster Saddam truly was.
Attacking Iran: The US of A as of 1979 to 1989. Enough said.
Invading Kuwait: I do agree on the assistance (I repeat, assistance. Invaluable. Incalculable. But, only assistance. It was Iraq vs Kuwait. Not Iraq vs US of A) My full support on Gulf War I. I've never said anything to the contrary on that, on these boards at least.
Shiite and Kurd Massacres: The US of A as of 1980 to 1999. Enough said.
Raping and torturing his own people: Valid argument. But invasion of a Sovereign Nation? Even that, on whose behest?
You see, my point is the US of A did nothing, and most often expressed active support and less often passive, at the time of the actual execution of monstrosities and absurdities, though fully and wholly aware of the implications of such crimes against humanity.
As far as your short sighted and simplistic layout of how US foreign policy has worked over the past 60 years I can see you are in much need of some facts to help you over come this obvious anti-American slant you have taken. Perhaps a simple example of one instance of US foreign policy that you feel fits into your little steps would have helped. In other words maybe some actual data not just simple anti-American rhetoric to back up your claims. The world is a dynamic place that is ever changing and assigning a static and simplistic 5 step “plan” of the route of 60 years of US foreign policy is inconceivable and short-sighted.
(Friend > Foe)
USSR - US of A > Germany
Germany (ok, a part of Germany) - US of A > USSR
Korea - US of A > Japan
Japan - US of A > Korea (ok, again a only a part)
'Nam!
....and so on and so forth
Pakistan - US of A > Afghanistan
Iraq - US of A > Iran
Let's see when the tables turn on Pakistan, the Iraqi table being totally capsized now.
The US doesn’t need any help from anyone in dealing with Iraq. I see the rest of the world saying, well you got into this yourselves you can get out of it yourselves. That’s fine by me. I do think however that as long as we are taking care of things in Iraq we also might as well take control of that nations oil supply so it can feed a hungry US economy to help it grow even larger. After all Iraq is the US’s problem no? No need for the rest of the world to concern itself with what the US does in Iraq. After all we got into it, what we get out of it is none of the rest of the worlds concern seeing as they obviously don’t care about the Iraqi people anyway.
Take the oil, if you want. Leave Humans alone.
Care and concern for the Iraqi people? C'mon!
Africa should not become a war zone? Are you living with your head in the sand? Africa is a war zone. There are currently over 50 wars and conflicts going on in Africa even as we speak. AIDS is currently ravaging the continent. Starvation and famine are commonplace. Thanks to the French, Belgians, and other Europeans for screwing up that continent and leaving it in the mess its currently in. I don’t even know what you are alluding to when you say that the US should stay out of Africa. I suppose the 15 billion dollars given to help fight AIDS should be taken back? The peacekeeping forces sent into Liberia should be removed? What is the UN’s role in Africa? Should the UN stay away as well? Well perhaps the UN should stay away given their total failure in regards to Rwanda…or should I say the French backed slaughter in Rwanda.
What you fail to see is that Africa is already a mess. All I see in your words is the fear of world domination by the United States of America. But what you fail to see is that the US has never been into colonizing like the Europeans were or in taking over and controlling nations like the former Soviet Union used to do. The US goes in then gets out as soon as possible. The same thing will happen with Iraq.
How about not going there at all. The fact that the French screwed up gives no justification for the US of A attempting to screw up. Money. Keep it. Or give it. Its yours. Land, Life, People, Freedom, Pride, they are not yours, for you to keep or give.
fear of world domination by the United States of America:
Hmm...Fear as in "I'm afraid so.."? Then yes, it is fear. It is more a feeling of unstability and monotony. All eggs in one basket. Thats the sentiment. That too in a foreign basket for 95% or more of the world.
The reason the rest of the world stood toe to toe with the US against communism is that it threatened everyone. It’s easy to get behind something that you have a stake in. This time however the threat of terrorism has been directed at the US alone and the rest of the world can’t seem to handle the US trying to defend itself.
Again, defending yourself in another's land, is offending him. The US of A is a geographic entity and only a geographic entity. Thats is its identity. As is any other Sovereign Nation. The rights of the US of A in a foreign Nation are at the pleasure of that Nation, as is the rights of that Nation in the US of A.
Being from India I would hope you would understand the threat of Islamic terrorism. Why just the other day you had bombing inside of India by Islamic terrorists. How does that make you feel? Do you think you have a right to defend yourself against such a thing? Or you should just take it because the rest of the world feels you shouldn’t crack down on terrorists because it could harm some innocent people and maybe start a war? Who do you feel should tell India what’s best for India? The UN? You seem to think they are the best at telling the US how to handle its business I suppose you would defer your national security to the UN as well? Let me know how you feel
For the umpteenth time, I do not see how a totally un-islamic, secular, fascisit-nationalist dictatorial regime such as Saddam's had anything to do with Islamic Fundamentalism and/or Terrorism, as it is understood nowadays.
Screw pakistan, the US should have taken them out along with Afghanastan. That's all I have to say about that.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Now that India is emerging as a strong economy, the US wants to penetrate the Indian markets, it wants to exploit the technological advances in India, use the skilled and cheap labour, and also dominate it so it can exploit it further.
.
What I do not understand is why you are against large US companies sending contracts to India. What the hell good does India's technological advances do it if no one is utilizing/buying it. As a techie yourself, you should understand that bottom line is the US needs more quality developers than we have and India is willing to provide them. It is no global conspiracy against India. Yes Indian developers make less. India is selling the US a service. It is India's business what the price tag on that service is. Both of our countries have a good thing going between the two of us why would you frown on that?
You haven't read my post. I know, I know! But it sure does no harm either :o
The reason we "frown", though most of us indulge in not exactly that, but a little skepticism and forebearance, certainly not over the moon, 'cause of the history of the US of A of successfully and regularly and violently converting old friends into current enemies.
The US didn't convert anyone those countries did it on their own by invading their neighbors. Japan, USSR, Germany, Iraq..etc. Its nice you recognize the power of the US but I think in this case you overestimate their influence.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
You haven't read my post. I know, I know! But it sure does no harm either :o
The reason we "frown", though most of us indulge in not exactly that, but a little skepticism and forebearance, certainly not over the moon, 'cause of the history of the US of A of successfully and regularly and violently converting old friends into current enemies.
X
Japan, USSR, Germany, Iraq, none of which qualify as neighbours to the US of A, in any normal sense.
Supercop, eh! Captain Proton, eh! Big Brother, eh! Patriarch, eh!
Anyways, with two Terminators holding the highest possible offices in the US of A, in a given context, it is not too surprising to understand the history. In fact its a logical outcome of the pas actions. And yes, there is something known as "Saturation Therapy". Only hitch is I do not want to be part of the process.
This is not a relationship between governments. This is a business relationship between US tech companies and Indian tech Companies. It is a completly different situation than the "Government relationships gone bad that you are refering to. Are you saying Microsoft, IBM or Sun are going to send 400,000 geeks to, as you say, "violently" beat indian developers over the head with keyboards if they refuse to take a contract from them? Hey, I don't particularly have any love for the people I work for either but I'll damn sure take their money.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
You haven't read my post. I know, I know! But it sure does no harm either :o
The reason we "frown", though most of us indulge in not exactly that, but a little skepticism and forebearance, certainly not over the moon, 'cause of the history of the US of A of successfully and regularly and violently converting old friends into current enemies.
Christ! Now its official!
Have we so totally lost track of evolution and growth and accumulation of knowledge that we are now totally engrossed and anamoured by the "Economics of Politics" and completely erased of our consciousness the "Politics of Economics"?
"Politics" (Hey Mendhak, here's another Greek word! :) ) is from "Polity". We, Us, Them, They form the polity. Anything and everything we undertake is by us and for us . Who else will lead the initiative but our elected (or selected) governments?
India opening up was poltical decision. A decision that was conscious of all the pros and cons. More importantly, much as you may disagree (or want to disagree) there was nop compulsion at all.
Yes, economics played a crucial, pivotal and decisive role. But always, always, the economy is a subset of the polity. There are communal affiliations, philospohical associations, security organizations, geographical compulsions, et. al involved in setting up and maintaining a vibrant polity.
I am 26. I've seen India open up at the same time as my formative (education wise) and am functionally experiencing it (employment wise) in our growth towards a broader and multi-national spectrum. Its good. Very good. And thank you to all of you who have participated and are participating in it. I mean that.
My "Anti-American" slant, as someone portrayed it, is FAPP true. The point is I am Anti-Bullying. The US of A was and is a bully. She does not indulge in dialogue, plays heavy handedly and, crucially, is inconsistent (thats PC speak for hypocracy) in its political international affiliations.
End result. Do I like Americans. Very much and passionately so. Do I like the US of A. Not at all. Its that pseudo-contradictions that drive me to repeatedly post my verbose and forcefull comments here, to communicate to you (Americans) . Else, I would have just said "....off" and that would be the end of it. I and many many others I know are keen on "sorting" that contradiction. Very keen. Thats why, I will keep posting stuff like the previous parapgraph, while at the same time maintaining strongly and truly this paragraph.
Regards
Kaushik Janardhanan
Then we agree. I'm not agruing your point of view any way. The only guestion I have and it wasn't even directed at you in particular is...
"Why is it a bad thing that India has found a market to sell their services to?"
Of course politics are involved. There is no way aroud that when you have trade agreements ect... Broken down to it's simpilist form, Indin companies agreed to sell something and American companies agreed to buy it at a fair price. Both of our governments made the necessary arrangements to make it legal and now we are both making a load of money(thank Microsoft for pushing that one through). I still fail to see it as some sort of US government conspiracy to keep the Indian Tech industry under it's thumb as HB was coloring it.
I am not complaining about jobs migrating from the US to India. But usually when you see a partnership that is beneficial to both, you try to make sure the partnership thrives in all respects. This is not happening with the US-India relationship. Whatever the US is doing with Pakistan can lead to only one conclusion (however far-fetched or ridiculous it may look) that I have mentioned above, simply because there is no other logical reason behind the US actions.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Screw pakistan, the US should have taken them out along with Afghanastan. That's all I have to say about that.
What I do not understand is why you are against large US companies sending contracts to India. What the hell good does India's technological advances do it if no one is utilizing/buying it. As a techie yourself, you should understand that bottom line is the US needs more quality developers than we have and India is willing to provide them. It is no global conspiracy against India. Yes Indian developers make less. India is selling the US a service. It is India's business what the price tag on that service is. Both of our countries have a good thing going between the two of us why would you frown on that?
.
You have misunderstood my comments. I am not saying that the US is trying to control the Indian tech industry. I mean to say the US is in general trying to gain a dominating and influencing position in India by forcing through its trade laws (read: GATT, WTO etc) and thereby ensure that the Indian government will always be a faithful follower of the US policies. By getting the Indian government to amend its existing laws related to foreign trade and investment, the US can force India to depend on it economically and as a consequence politically. And this is part of a broader plan to penetrate the developing nations in general.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
... I still fail to see it as some sort of US government conspiracy to keep the Indian Tech industry under it's thumb as HB was coloring it. ...
If the US did not have malicious intentions it would have treated Pakistan as it is treating Palestine today, and would have treated India as it is treating Israel today.
I personally think that if the US told Israel and Pakistan both to simply stop acting as cowboys and stopped all their funding and support, you could hope for some rational thinking in both the countries.....
.