Bangladesh-US relations: Bangladesh matters

[Zabaniyah]

What if Burma fulfills all the purposes of USA in this region? BD could lose its significance to USA?

Generally speaking, small countries like Bangladesh are of very little consequence to US policy.

The only unique exception being is Israel.

 

[Skies]

Generally speaking, small countries like Bangladesh are of very little consequence to US policy.

The only unique exception being is Israel.

The country can be small, but the goal/target can be big. Like BD can be small, but operating a game/base from Bay of BD to rule this region is a big goal. Like Syria is not big, but the Syria game is bigger.

 

[Zabaniyah]

The country can be small, but the goal/target can be big. Like BD can be small, but operating a game/base from Bay of BD to rule this region is a big goal. Like Syria is not big, but the Syria game is bigger.

They can't technically build a big naval base in BD. It's way too shallow.

Besides, they have carrier groups that can strike anywhere, anytime.

 

[the just]

They can't technically build a big naval base in BD. It's way too shallow.

Besides, they have carrier groups that can strike anywhere, anytime.

True.But don't you wonder sometimes then why they are still very much interested in BD and BD related any matter?something we are missing and they know.

 

[eastwatch]

USA didn't get involved in BoB before and it doesn't have any record around the world of ensuring peace. Last time regarding BoB their record is they backed an army govt. of Pakistan who played with blood here....somehow that was not ensuring peace.

Now, it is 2013, a very long distance from 1971.

Would you mind telling also what China did in 1971 when the PA troops were killing lakhs of people and before the USA was in the BoB to stop a full control of BD by the IA?

Why BD people should like China in 2013 after what it did against the creation of BD?

And also, what India did in 1971 for BD and what the same BD people think of the same India in 2013?

 

[eastwatch]

Russia is a factor.

If we look at the map of Asia, there is not a single Russian presence on land in the entire southern section of Asia. Yes, the whole thing.

That is why there is a lot of ruckus going on in Syria at the moment. The issue is not Assad slaughtering Syrians, but the issue is Russia.

The Americans intend to keep the Russians out of those regions no matter what. The Eagle don't want the Bear getting too close to him.

India-Russia relations is another story. Anyhow, Russia isn't that much a big player at the moment.

Thanks for the input. It is Russia that has been chosen by the US, other western countries and Japan as the most enemy country. It is encircled in the north Pacific by USA and Japan, in the south by Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, by Turkey in the SW and by its former Republics in its west who aspire to become EU members.

US thinks the world would be a better place for them without a Russian influence. Russia would have been stronger had China lent its power and influence to that country. But, China is not sincere. It is after creating its own sphere of influence.

But, anyway about the US-BD relationship. I believe BD is important to the USA because of its location that favours China in a hypothetical Indo-China war. A certain win for China and a subsequent change of NE status only if BD effectively denies its airspace from being used by the IAF jets and for logistics supplies.

Even US cannot lend its physical support to the IA troops in the north/NE without being permitted to use BD land mass in such a situation.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

Generally speaking, small countries like Bangladesh are of very little consequence to US policy.

The only unique exception being is Israel.

There are many exceptions like so called israel, Taiwanese defence is completely dependent on USA...look at their defence budget a year. Plz also go through Korean,Sinagaporean defence relations and dependency on USA.

Super power doesn't seek big countries for their military presence, it's always small countries. Using small countries they play lots of regional game like both Soviet Union and USA did. Of very little consequence - you never know about this....if a country is strategically important based on specific geopolitical scenario, it doesn't matter if it's big or not. Building a military establishment requires a small area of land which could be dangerous for the neighborhood.

For Bangladesh it's a bit mystery that US has been showing too much interest these days, there could be many reasons behind this...let's leave it for now. Only thing I can say we shouldn't go more than now with USA.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

Now, it is 2013, a very long distance from 1971.

Would you mind telling also what China did in 1971 when the PA troops were killing lakhs of people and before the USA was in the BoB to stop a full control of BD by the IA?

Why BD people should like China in 2013 after what it did against the creation of BD?

And also, what India did in 1971 for BD and what the same BD people think of the same India in 2013?

I think the debate was on ensuring peace. Would you mind showing some good examples of ensuring peace by USA? I understand the points regarding geopolitics that could change within time.

 

[eastwatch]

I think the debate was on ensuring peace. Would you mind showing some good examples of ensuring peace by USA? I understand the points regarding geopolitics that could change within time.

1) USA ensured peace in Europe by fighting against the axis power of Germany and Italy.

2) It ensured peace in Europe by providing food and billions of dollars of money under Marshal Plan after the end of WWll.

3) It ensured peace in all the Pacific countries from the aggressive invasion of Japan in the Pacific war/WWll.

4) It ensured peace in the Korean Peninsula by fighting against both north Korean and Chinese communists. It fought a massive and long war there. It is still ensuring peace there.

5) It is ensuring peace in Taiwan and Japan from being overwhelmed by the Chinese military and diplomatic aggression.

6) It is ensuring peace in the Arab ME by supporting Israel. Without that entity, the Arab countries, by their very 'fasadi' nature, would have been fighting against each other throughout the year. Only the presence of Israel has made them sheepish.

7) It has been protecting west Europe from the aggression of the USSR and now Russia since after WWll.

8) It ensured in 1971/1972 that IA troops leave Bangladesh without making their stay longer than necessary.

9) It is trying to ensure that BoB be the responsibility of Bangladesh.

10) It will ensure peace in the BoB by putting itself between IN in Orissa coast and PLAN in Myanmar.

 

[BDforever]

@Loki and @Skies before say something ,check out Pak-fa type and US strategic bombers. otherwise you are talking like foolish

 

[Skies]

@Loki and @Skies before say something ,check out Pak-fa type and US strategic bombers. otherwise you are talking like foolish

Thought I do not have enough knowledge on jets, but I know they are very expensive option to use from 10000 km distance. USA could attack Iraq, IRAN, Afghan, or Syria sitting in US, but they came to Arab sea with air carriers, for precision and cost minimization.

 

[BDforever]

Thought I do not have enough knowledge on jets, but I know there are very expensive option to use from 10000 km distance. USA could attack sitting in US, but they came to Arab sea with air carrier, for precision and cost minimization.

USA always uses long range bombers, same thing did during Iraq war. USA already has long range bomber which can take off from aircraft carrier. Now more advanced bomber underdevelopment, anyway, bombing from aircraft carrier is more costly than from land airbase because aircraft carrier needs heavy protecting with Destroyers, Frigates , submarines etc.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

1) USA ensured peace in Europe by fighting against the axis power of Germany and Italy.

2) It ensured peace in Europe by providing food and billions of dollars of money under Marshal Plan after the end of WWll.

3) It ensured peace in all the Pacific countries from the aggressive invasion of Japan in the Pacific war/WWll.

4) It ensured peace in the Korean Peninsula by fighting against both north Korean and Chinese communists. It fought a massive and long war there. It is still ensuring peace there.

5) It is ensuring peace in Taiwan and Japan from being overwhelmed by the Chinese military and diplomatic aggression.

6) It is ensuring peace in the Arab ME by supporting Israel. Without that entity, the Arab countries, by their very 'fasadi' nature, would have been fighting against each other throughout the year. Only the presence of Israel has made them sheepish.

7) It has been protecting west Europe from the aggression of the USSR and now Russia since after WWll.

8) It ensured in 1971/1972 that IA troops leave Bangladesh without making their stay longer than necessary.

9) It is trying to ensure that BoB be the responsibility of Bangladesh.

10) It will ensure peace in the BoB by putting itself between IN in Orissa coast and PLAN in Myanmar.

Yeah...as you said in a previous post, it depends on view. Still it's surprising to me to see that a country used nuclear bomb in Japan, chemical weapons in Vietnam, destroyed Iraq on false excuse of WMD is a peace keeper to you.

 

[Zabaniyah]

True.But don't you wonder sometimes then why they are still very much interested in BD and BD related any matter?something we are missing and they know.

Hmm.....anything is possible regarding the US.

It may appear strange to see them pressuring the AL-led government on a range of issues. I simply believe that they do not want to see Bangladesh slip into chaos in any manner. If that happens, the neighborhood would certainly be affected in a negative way. That is all we can say seeing from the surface of things.

Oh, and they love cheap $hit too. The RMG sector that is.

Thanks for the input. It is Russia that has been chosen by the US, other western countries and Japan as the most enemy country. It is encircled in the north Pacific by USA and Japan, in the south by Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, by Turkey in the SW and by its former Republics in its west who aspire to become EU members.

US thinks the world would be a better place for them without a Russian influence. Russia would have been stronger had China lent its power and influence to that country. But, China is not sincere. It is after creating its own sphere of influence.

Of-course the Chinese would settle things on their own terms. Many do not trust the Russians for....many reasons.

And given Russia's vast landmass, resources, decent technology (especially space and rocket technology) and small population; they can be a threat to Western interests. That is partly why Russia is not a full member of the WTO. That is what causing a lot of Russian folks to burn. Putin is still very popular among them. He's the strongman over there. A rock star.

Some may say that the former Soviet bloc countries in Central Asia can be a trump card for the Russians. But however, all of them are landlocked countries. That doesn't add any significant advantage. What they want is to at least have direct access to the seas in order to spread their influence. The East European former Soviet states don't like Russia, and like the EU better. Estonia for example is a shining small nation.

See, much of the action is happening in places like the South China Sea, the Strait of Hormuz, and others. That's in the southern section of the vast expanse of Asia and the seas connecting them. They missing all that, and they know it.

One thing about Russians: They like and enjoy being powerful.

But, anyway about the US-BD relationship. I believe BD is important to the USA because of its location that favours China in a hypothetical Indo-China war. A certain win for China and a subsequent change of NE status only if BD effectively denies its airspace from being used by the IAF jets and for logistics supplies.

Even US cannot lend its physical support to the IA troops in the north/NE without being permitted to use BD land mass in such a situation.

It's funny you know. The Indians often whine of how the Americans intervened during the 71' War. But what many don't know is that it was the Indians who were the backstabbers. The Special Frontier Force (SFF) was funded and trained by the CIA, and only intended for use in Tibet. They used them to lethal effect in East Pakistan instead, sending American interests in smoke. That's why Nixon called the Indians all kinds of names. Though, he was a foolish and an ignorant man to say the least.

Do they trust one another completely still? I think not. Though Bangladesh is a small country with limited resources, I believe there is potential for fruit if Bangladeshi leaders play their cards right. America's foothold in south Asia is very weak compared to the middle east and east Asia.

Pakistan is mostly a lost case for the Americans. The F-16 would very likely be the last Western jet they'd ever receive.

I wish the writer could have elaborated more on India. I think they know about the truth here. I once read an article by Muhammad Badrul Ashan (editor of First News). He once made a reference to Mir-Jaffar and how the British hardly gave him anything in return after their victory. He stated that history is bound the repeat itself.

@Loki and @Skies before say something ,check out Pak-fa type and US strategic bombers. otherwise you are talking like foolish

It's PAD-DA dear. And still on the drawing board.

Logistical capabilities and reach do matter. Long-range bombers are only part of a nation's plans for sphere of influence.

There are many exceptions like so called israel, Taiwanese defence is completely dependent on USA...look at their defence budget a year. Plz also go through Korean,Sinagaporean defence relations and dependency on USA.

Dude, do you know how advanced those countries are at the moment? Though, it may be possible for Bangladesh to reach that level of advancement. Singapore used to be slum once if memory serves.

Super power doesn't seek big countries for their military presence, it's always small countries. Using small countries they play lots of regional game like both Soviet Union and USA did. Of very little consequence - you never know about this....if a country is strategically important based on specific geopolitical scenario, it doesn't matter if it's big or not. Building a military establishment requires a small area of land which could be dangerous for the neighborhood.

For Bangladesh it's a bit mystery that US has been showing too much interest these days, there could be many reasons behind this...let's leave it for now. Only thing I can say we shouldn't go more than now with USA.

Medium or large countries do matter the most to the US.

If they can remove those two idiots from power, along with reconciliation; I'll support them. They may be good or bad, but try seeing this a a means to an end.