What's brewing in Washington?

[Developereo]

I thought so too about the intended audience; now I am more interested than ever in your thoughts that would answer the questions in the final paragraph.

Waiting for more .......

(Ignore the distractions please.)

There are no easy answers, obviously. I was hoping to get some suggestions and then discuss them.

It is simplistic to say America wants 'economic benefits' since, as the case of Iran shows, America's economic interests are fully subservient to its geopolitical goals. It also seems that American politics is guided by fear more than hope these days -- the primary presidential debates are a case in point.

Perhaps it's just a matter of waiting it out. I think the situation is going to get a whole lot more complicated with the rise of nationalism in India, China and Russia. Russia, especially, is likely to get a lot more assertive, which will stir the pot in a most interesting way. Personally, I think the US will go through some growing pains, but will eventually learn to accept the new world order. As America gets more comfortable with China and develops a more realistic view of its relationship with India, the pressure on Pakistan is likely to decrease.

What do you think?

 

[Developereo]

LOL are you for real? First you say NAM was a joke, then when I pointed out that India being true to her sovereign foreign policy opposed Soviet invasion to afg,

Yet India voted in favor of the Soviets when they invaded Hungary in 1956. India's little charade has been amusing, but fools nobody.

you as usual shifted the goal post and raised a straw man of supposed ideological and military cooperation. I wonder what will your excuse be when I point out the obvious - India bought hardware from European countries as well and it has been a democracy as opposed to communism in ussr.

Not shifting any goal posts. Merely pointing out that Russia has been India's most reliable and steadfast military supplier until recently. The dance of evasion is entertaining, but otherwise ineffective.

I don't know what's up with you and Chinese, but CCP never was a threat nor a friend of USA before 2000, and in case you are unaware of the fact, Nixon was president during cold era, he and kissinger personified cold era.

Yes, Nixon was Prez during the Cold War. That was precisely my point that the American concerns about China date back several decades.

1. Pakistan is a sell out hence india also is a sell out.

2. Gullible Indians are happy to be a pawn against West nefarious design against kind and always have been and will be powerful Chinese, as long as west give india Pakistan head in platter (thus hinting all misfortunes of pak are due to india-west nexus, a suave way of blaming raw cia mossad).

Nowhere did I imply that India is a sellout. In fact, I specifically said that India is playing the game for its benefit.

3. India sucks, their economic growth is a farce, even X(put any failed country name here) could have achieved it having been proped up by west for their ulterior plan of countering China in some 30 years later! (never mind China was never a threat to us back in 90s and India was subjected to stringent sanctions after nuke testing).

This Indian defensiveness is getting tiresome and irrelevant.

 

[LaBong]

Yet India voted in favor of the Soviets when they invaded Hungary in 1956. India's little charade has been amusing, but fools nobody.

No sh!t Sherlock, now understand NAM was founded in 1961.

Not shifting any goal posts. Merely pointing out that Russia has been India's most reliable and steadfast military supplier until recently. The dance of evasion is entertaining, but otherwise ineffective.

Are you trying to say that India wasn't self-reliant at producing weapons, I mean you have to buy hardwares form somewhere and there have been two major producers - USA and USSR. How does that prove India-USSR nexus?

This is sad. I am not going to derail this topic to educate Indians about the history of Sino-American relations. Yes, Nixon was Prez during the Cold War. That was precisely my point that the American concerns about China date back several decades.

So you want to educate others and yet failed to understand that it was US concern about USSR that drove short lived China-US relation after Sino-Soviet split in 70s. China has not been on US radar after that.

Nowhere did I imply that India is a sellout. In fact, I specifically said that India is playing the game for its benefit.

America knows that the price of India's cooperation in the greater game is Pakistan's head on a platter.

I was just pointing out we don't have a price, even if we do, that is not Pakistan. World doesn't revolves around Pakistan. We won't cooperate with US in any of her misadventures just as we didn't with USSR.

Heck we voted against US in nearly all UN resolution in recent times.

I know Indians are hurting from the Chinese thrashing in other threads, but you should take it up with them. No need to vent your frustrations in this thread.

Once again Pakistanis trying to hide behind Chinese. When did I say anything bad about China except stating the obvious that US started becoming concerned about China after 2000 when they came to know about the existence of J10. Seems the deeper than oceans and higher than mountains clouded your judgment!

As far as thrashing goes, few has able to doled out that to me, irrespective of their nationality.

 

[Areesh]

Good read Developereo. Was bound to hit some nerves of those people who live in their own fairyland. Proofs that it is a good and realistic read.

 

[Developereo]

No sh!t Sherlock, now understand NAM was founded in 1961.

The Indian cluelessness knows no bounds, so I have to spell it out. India had been backing the Soviets since before the NAM. The NAM changed nothing. It fooled nobody. If anything, the military relationship between India and Russia only grew stronger over the years. Russia didn't help India solely out of the goodness of its heart.

Are you trying to say that India wasn't self-reliant at producing weapons, I mean you have to buy hardwares form somewhere and there have been two major producers - USA and USSR. How does that prove India-USSR nexus?

Again, we have to spell it out for our Indian friends. Russia and US supplied weapons to India and Pakistan, respectively. There was a de facto alignment on both sides, regardless of any NAM charade.

So you want to educate others and yet failed to understand that it was US concern about USSR that drove short lived China-US relation after Sino-Soviet split in 70s. China has not been on US radar after that.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I recommend you spend some time to understand American policy vis-a-vis China through the decades. The Sino-American relationship has had its own dynamics, quite apart from the Soviet angle. Brief interludes notwithstanding, there has been no change in the fundamental US doctrine towards the CCP -- the only variant has been debate about whether to achieve US objectives through containment or engagement.

America knows that the price of India's cooperation in the greater game is Pakistan's head on a platter.

I was just pointing out we don't have a price, even if we do, that is not Pakistan.

The powers-that-be know the reality.

US started becoming concerned about China after 2000 when they came to know about the existence of J10. Seems the deeper than oceans and higher than mountains clouded your judgment!

See above.

 

[saiyan0321]

this is becoming a troll fest so indians i am going to tell you this is about how can pakistan convince america it is more usefull alive then dead and in simpler terms for all of your troll minds how can pakistan stop america from doing major harm to her. so all thse that are calling maggots and not knowing worth watch your mouths

pakistan cant do much now america is really against pakistan there are only two options either pakistan listens to every word america says do what it says and then destroy itself by being a lapdog or it can say no incur america,s wrath..... its a dying power it will do anything to keep itself on the top. pakistan should keep good relations with america and ignore there media since there is nothing we can do its become normal to get ratings bash pakistan and keep distance from them the further we are from america the better but keep happy relations

 

[huzihaidao12]

My point of view

Although the ideological confrontation is a major cause of U.S. hostility toward China, but above that, geopolitical is a more common and more important factor. America's strategic goal is to maintain its global hegemony, any threat to this goal of national and alliance, he or they will be opponents or potential opponents. so, the Soviet Union \ EU \ Russia \ China \ Japan \ India, all have had this experience at different times, of course, for the present rival and future rival , the United States use different methods , which is why the United States can together with China to fight the Soviet Union, even if there ideological differences, which is why India is the favorite now as we in the 80S.

 

[huzihaidao12]

Our strength and position are not so powerful and important in the 90S, but an independent (political \ economic \ military \ foreign) China is still a eyesore to the Western system (US-led), so after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, China became the next collapse of the target, the battle continues to this day the United States to control Central Asia and Afghanistan, not so much China is strong enough, but rather that, as long as the control of Afghanistan and Central Asia, the United States will be able to control the Eurasian continent, the EU \ Russia \ China, three main rivals, India, a future rival, will be controlled by the United States, America's global hegemony will continue.

This is the essence, no matter how dazzling appearance.

 

[huzihaidao12]

There may be a little harsh, but for the United States, Pakistan is just a tool, even a short-term tool. Pakistan's development itself will not bring any benefits for the United States. U.S. to aid Pakistan just to achieve their short-term goals, while India is a more important tool, it is clear who to choose.

 

[newdelhinsa]

^^Very rare to see such good post from a Chinese member. I will read your previous posts, Sir.

 

[Developereo]

There may be a little harsh, but for the United States, Pakistan is just a tool, even a short-term tool. Pakistan's development itself will not bring any benefits for the United States. U.S. to aid Pakistan just to achieve their short-term goals, while India is a more important tool, it is clear who to choose.

No, you are absolutely right and many people in Pakistan realize that. At this point the bar is rather low for the Pakistan-US relationship. The question is not how to develop a beneficial relationship with the US, but how to minimize the damage and keep the US off its back.

 

[LaBong]

The Indian cluelessness knows no bounds, so I have to spell it out. India had been backing the Soviets since before the NAM. The NAM changed nothing. It fooled nobody. If anything, the military relationship between India and Russia only grew stronger over the years. Russia didn't help India solely out of the goodness of its heart.

Raising the bar again? So now when I pointed out NAM was founded in 1961 you started judging India for what he did before NAM, even after being pointed out by me that India oppsed USSR foreign policy even at the zenith of Indo-Russia friendship. Seems your intellectual dichotomy knows no bound.

By the way would you please cite your source regarding Indian opposition of UN resolution 120, so far my search leads me here.

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had suggested already on October 24th that the UN Security Council be convened to discuss the situation in Hungary. On matters Hungarian, Foster Dulles acted in close consultation with his brother Allen Dulles, who headed the CIA. What Foster Dulles was afraid of was that, should the US not move in time, Hungarian exiles in the US would see to it themselves that the question be placed on the agenda, making use of the good offices of the Cuban and Peruvian representatives on the Security Council. There was some basis to such a supposition since a number of organizations of exiles, such as the Alliance of European Captive Nations had, already on October 24th, requested a debate on the situation in Hungary and in Poland through a submission addressed to the Chairman of the Security Council. At their meeting on October 25th President Eisenhower suggested to Secretary of State Dulles that at the very least, the major NATO countries ought to be consulted, and that, in any event, a request to put the question on the agenda should not come solely from the United States.4 In the State Department they finally thought it best to consult "friendly" signatories of the Hungarian peace treaty of 1947, and a round-robin cable to that effect was sent the same day to the governments of Great Britain, Canada, India, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Albeit France had not been amongst the signatories, she was consulted as well. As regards "semi-friendly" Yugoslavia, it was left to the US Ambassador in Belgrade to decide whether and how he would raise the question with the government. The cable suggested that a letter be circulated amongst members of the Security Council which drew attention to the Soviet intervention and called on members of the Council to examine to what degree the situation threatened peace or security. Another way would be placing the question on the agenda. This would mean the appointment of a fact-finding commission which would report to the Council.5 Then, after appropriate consultations, a resolution would be moved.
​

http://www.rev.hu/portal/page/portal/rev/tanulmanyok/1956/hungquest

Again, we have to spell it out for our Indian friends. Russia and US supplied weapons to India and Pakistan, respectively. There was a de facto alignment on both sides, regardless of any NAM charade.

History lesson for you. Until 1969 the Soviet Union took an evenhanded position in South Asia and supplied a limited quantity of arms to Pakistan in 1968. Russia's role in 65's war between India-Pak was strictly neutral.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I recommend you spend some time to understand American policy vis-a-vis China through the decades. The Sino-American relationship has had its own dynamics, quite apart from the Soviet angle. Brief interludes notwithstanding, there has been no change in the fundamental US doctrine towards the CCP -- the only variant has been debate about whether to achieve US objectives through containment or engagement.

So far I have been citing sources, real events to bolsters my argument as opposed you repeatedly asking me to understand what you think was US-China relation in cold era. So do you walk the walk too?

Better read the post made by the Chinese and understand the US policy vis-a-vis China back in cold era.

The powers-that-be know the reality.



See above.

Says a guy from a country which hosts US base for last 60 years or so. Come again when you see foreign troops operating from sovereign land of India.

 

[Developereo]

United States will be able to control the Eurasian continent, the EU \ Russia \ China, three main rivals, India, a future rival

The US does not perceive India to be a credible threat any time soon. It is not stupid enough to militarily build up a potential rival. The situation is decidedly different from the case of China: even in the best of times, the US never gave China the kind of leverage it is now giving to India.

 

[huzihaidao12]

^^Very rare to see such good post from a Chinese member. I will read your previous posts, Sir.

Thank you very much praise, but my English is poor, may be a bit difficult to read, I'm sorry, first of all.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

This is a very well written article.