Flintlock
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
- Reaction score
- 0
"Ripe for picking by the west".
That ain't happening. India is doing a balancing act, and will continue to do that until it has more influence.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Ripe for picking by the west".
That ain't happening. India is doing a balancing act, and will continue to do that until it has more influence.
uhuh - and how many Pakistani soldiers and civilians have been killed by the Taliban? How many suicide bombings targeted ISI employees in 2007?
I dare say there is a stronger case, using your logic, against Pakistan supporting the Taliban, then there is against India doing so.
Milt Bearden:
But you know, I'd like to throw out something for our group here is,
India. What is India up into -- up to in Afghanistan? What are its goals?
And do we understand the effect on Pakistan, the government of Pakistan,
the army of Pakistan, of the Indians doing anything in Afghanistan? I
think it's a huge issue. I think Holbrooke will have to look at it and
understand it.
If the Afghans democratically elect somebody other than Karzai, India will support them too, if they want India's support.And Karzai is considered by most Pakistanis as a man of
India.
That balancing act will go against the West for sure were the West to directly confront India over its complicity in terrorism. There is a balancing act occurring on all sides here - India trying to balance its support for terrorism in Pakistan against Western economic interests in India. The US trying to balance pressure on Pakistan and India against both economic and strategic interests (vis a vis China and Iran) and Pakistan trying to balance its interests against a very real Indian threat on both Eastern and Western fronts.
So how does all of this support your "ripe for picking" remark?
Kashmir is internationally recognized disputed territory, Baluchistan is not. In Kashmir India unilaterally walked away from international agreements to resolve the issue, thereby eliminating the means for diplomatic resolution of the dispute.However i am not sure about india supporting BLA issue, but i think even if we do its justfied as you have been openely supporting the Freedom fighters in Kashmir U know a tit for tat. Giving it back with the same coin..!!!
What does 'ripe for the picking' mean to you?
In the context I used it in it mean that most Indian contracts will go to the West, especially after how badly the Russian have burned India over the AC Carrier, Nuke Subs, etc.
Economically the Russians have nothing to offer even close to what the West can. Hence, if the West does not alienate India, she is ripe for the picking.
Things take some time to change... Americans will play nice for the time being.If this were true, Richard Holbrooke and his entire entourage would be raising hell in India right now; and it would be the NATO forces bombing Indian embassies in Afghanistan. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Do you honestly think US and NATO would let India get away with supporting the Taliban when we've have been taking such high casualties of late? This matter would be plastered over every major news media network in the West and would be the focal point of all discussions with India; furthermore all defense deals with India would be threatened and/or severed instantaneously. Every American policy group and think tank worth its salt would be investigating this topic in earnest and publishing their results; but none of this seems to be the case either; all we have is a post on a glorified blog with irritating graphics and pop up ads claiming to expose the "myth of Israel."
Definition of Naivety: Why is India in Afghanistan? For trade purposes...BLA-
BLA Profile- START DHS/Univ. of Maryland
This is a DHS website that will clarify our current views. It will also indicate those of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, the EU and Russia WRT the BLA. I'm not sure our views are that out of line with those of others.
I think Bearden's comments here are general in nature but illustrate that ANY Indian activity in Afghanistan would be unacceptable given an "anxious" Pakistani climate. I found, therefore, Halaku Khan's response very appropriate-
"Building roads, power lines, supporting child nutrition, and generally helping the democratically elected government of Afghanistan."
That's the dominant Indian message with Afghanistan and entirely legitimate/necessary. By itself, it can't be seen as a geo-political threat of any importance as it only visibly manifests Indian altruism. Their self-interests seem fully transparent- to gain access to CAR, Russian, and European markets and energy and to do so from a favored diplomatic posture with Afghanistan. They appear to be succeeding famously.
Seems that portion is how the game should be played, wouldn't you agree?
Pakistan could do with a more visible presence in Afghanistan as well. My understanding is that your President and Karzai get along quite well as compared to, say, Musharraf. It needs exploitation.
There's a lot of back n' forth here but nothing's changed my essential views that Pakistan now suffers from a long and continuing history embracing proxy warfare.
You may have a problem between Mehsud and the Afghan Nat'l Directorate of Intelligence. I don't know but wouldn't be the least surprised. So too with India- but not from Afghanistan. Too difficult and too many prying eyes when it's otherwise too easy to move money and expertise by other means and through other routes.