What's brewing in Washington?

[newdelhinsa]

Oh, but it does. That is the central point of the thesis.



That is one of the US goals in Afghanistan -- to rectify the situation and install a pro-India puppet in Afghanistan.



Of course. Why on earth would the US ever agree to something which is 100% counter to their plans in the first place?



The moral angle was strictly for public consumption. The governments were under no illusions about the real goals of the Afghan mission. Once the AQ was neutralized and the Taliban deposed, the 'official' mission was over. There was never any mandate about human rights, democracy or anything of the sort. The WOT is only a cover for continued military presence.



The politically incorrect reality is that soldiers are dispensable. Countries sacrifice their citizens all the time for strategic gains.



The US has repeatedly claimed that Pakistan wields extreme influence with the Taliban. It is now an open admission that the Taliban hold sway in large parts of the country, and NATO is talking to them after all these years. If the US really wanted stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan was the natural choice of intermediary to get all the parties to the negotiating table. But of course, stability is the last thing on NATO's agenda. Stability would mean its time to go.

Come on Developereo be reasonable there is no need to bring India into US-Pakistan circus of converging-diverging interests. They never blamed Pakistan in last 10 years like they started doing after Osama bin Laden operation.

 

[Developereo]

Thanks for proving that it was all about China, the new 'Best' friend of US.

The point we were discussing was the NAM charade and the fact that the USSR intervened militarily on behalf of India. Nobody ever denied that the US and China had formed a marriage of convenience. Every time you lose a discussion, you change the goalposts and start flailing around.

Let's hear from the horse's mouth.

Read the direct transcript of the Soviet commander on the scene instead of after-the-fact diplobabble by a career diplomat. The encounters are all in the Bay of Bengal. The US sent the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal to protect China? Exactly what Chinese assets were in the Bay of Bengal in 1971? Ever try opening a map?

In any case, as stated above, the point to prove was that the Soviets directly intervened on behalf of India.

There is difference between weapon and technology, just trying to show the dichotomy.

No, you are just trying to dance around when you lose a point.

 

[Developereo]

Come on Developereo be reasonable there is no need to bring India into US-Pakistan circus of converging-diverging interests. They never blamed Pakistan in last 10 years like they started doing after Osama bin Laden operation.

Exactly. The US frustration level has reached a high point because Pakistan has thwarted their plans in Afghanistan. The Taliban are not destroyed, India does not rule by proxy (at least not outside Kabul), and the long term presence of American bases will need to be negotiated with a government that may well have significant Taliban membership.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Exactly. The US frustration level has reached a high point because Pakistan has thwarted their plans in Afghanistan. The Taliban are not destroyed, India does not rule by proxy (at least not outside Kabul), and the long term presence of American bases will need to be negotiated with a government that may well have significant Taliban membership.

bakee to chalo samajh me ataa hai par US India ke liye aisa kyoon karega what US stand's to gain from it??????????

 

[Developereo]

bakee to chalo samajh me ataa hai par US India ke liye aisa kyoon karega what US stand's to gain from it??????????

It gives India access to the Central Asian Republics, which are one of the resource-rich hot battlegrounds for influence. It also helps India encircle China (and Pakistan).

It is in line with the US wish to enhance India's footprint in central Asia.

 

[GURU DUTT]

It gives India access to the Central Asian Republics, which are one of the resource-rich hot battlegrounds for influence. It also helps India encircle China (and Pakistan).

It is in line with the US wish to enhance India's footprint in central Asia.

Sir if the history of Indo -US relation's is anything to say about i am still clueless that why a superpower which tried it's best to influence us & even sent it's 7'th fleet to bully us (some think to bully USSR) & helped owr so called (enemy state) & looked away whenever we were in trouble & we also never cared about it's intyerests over owr's(INDO-IRAN diplomacy&INDO-BURMA diplomacy) why on earth will the same power enrage it's "most imp non NATO ally" for owr interests as they very well know we will never support US back let alone give them any strategic acsess??????????????????????? please do clear my cofeusion's Thanks Again .

 

[deckingraj]

The point we were discussing was the NAM charade and the fact that the USSR intervened militarily on behalf of India. Nobody ever denied that the US and China had formed a marriage of convenience. Every time you lose a discussion, you change the goalposts and start flailing around.



Read the direct transcript of the Soviet commander on the scene instead of after-the-fact diplobabble by a career diplomat. The encounters are all in the Bay of Bengal. The US sent the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal to protect China? Exactly what Chinese assets were in the Bay of Bengal in 1971? Ever try opening a map?

In any case, as stated above, the point to prove was that the Soviets directly intervened on behalf of India.



No, you are just trying to dance around when you lose a point.



The same way you 'shamed' the Chinese in those threads, no doubt. Self-delusion seems to run high over there.

Wait a minute....Is anybody denying that USSR helped us militarily in 71 war??? I mean they did indirectly yet the help was there...If yes then he/she needs to inform themselves on the subject...However your point that USSR helped us means we left the NAM is plain wrong....Yes soviet directly intervened on behalf of India but that doesn't mean we joined soviet block against anybody...

 

[Developereo]

I see, your entire analysis as too shallow, bereft of any profound thought. As I read it, it seems every thing is just straight forward in your perspective, that you seem to believe that entire world is conspiring against Pakistan. And the article itself is devoid of the other perspective, reads as a childish narration of events. Do you want your readers to take your words as truth?

Good to know.

what did he mean when he said India wants Pakistan's head on a platter . How does that serve any of Indian interests?

India Weighs Capability To Fight Two-Front War | Gannett Government Media | defensenews.com

Neutralizing one front means India can focus on the bigger 'threat'.

Sir if the history of Indo -US relation's is anything to say about i am still clueless that why a superpower which tried it's best to influence us & even sent it's 7'th fleet to bully us (some think to bully USSR) & helped owr so called (enemy state) & looked away whenever we were in trouble & we also never cared about it's intyerests over owr's(INDO-IRAN diplomacy&INDO-BURMA diplomacy) why on earth will the same power enrage it's "most imp non NATO ally" for owr interests as they very well know we will never support US back let alone give them any strategic acsess??????????????????????? please do clear my cofeusion's Thanks Again .

The US doesn't expect India to challenge China for America's sake, but for India's own paranoia about China. The US is only enabling India, the anti-China motive is already there within India. Here's what I wrote in the original article (read bolded part):

cognizant of the tension between India and China, the US decided to promote India as a counterweight.
[...]
India wouldn't mind at all (wink, wink) if Pakistan and China were to 'suffer' at America's hands

 

[Developereo]

Wait a minute....Is anybody denying that USSR helped us militarily in 71 war??? I mean they did indirectly yet the help was there...If yes then he/she needs to inform themselves on the subject...However your point that USSR helped us means we left the NAM is plain wrong....Yes soviet directly intervened on behalf of India but that doesn't mean we joined soviet block against anybody...

The Soviet intervention was about as direct as it can get. I posted the transcript of the Soviet Commander above where he describes actually aiming their missile systems.

The point was that the USSR was not in the habit of challenging the USN directly for just any country. The relationship with India was special, indeed. Russia was India's primary weapons supplier; it directly challenged the USN on India's behalf.

NAM? yeah sure!

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Good to know.



India Weighs Capability To Fight Two-Front War | Gannett Government Media | defensenews.com

Neutralizing one front means India can focus on the bigger 'threat'.



The US doesn't expect India to challenge China for America's sake, but for India's own paranoia about China. The US is only enabling India, the anti-China motive is already there within India. Here's what I wrote in the original article (read bolded part):

So that is your answer to why you said India wanted Pakistan's head on a platter ? That is a very weak response. Just because India is preparing for the worst possible situation of fighting a two front war with Pakistan and China means India wants Pakistan's head on a platter ? I knew you did not have satisfactory justification for that outrageous and ill founded statement .

 

[GURU DUTT]

Good to know.

The US doesn't expect India to challenge China for America's sake, but for India's own paranoia about China. The US is only enabling India, the anti-China motive is already there within India. Here's what I wrote in the original article (read bolded part):

but sir it still dosent clears why will US take a dirct panga with China & Pakistan for Indian Interests when it(US&NATO) very well know we will still be of no use to its strategic goal's in the regeon & they cant control India by any means?????????

secondly what USA stands to gain with a strong India against China ....because if the need arises India can always sign a freindship or diplomatic or strategic/economi alliance with china like BRIC or something ???????????

 

[Developereo]

So that is your answer to why you said India wanted Pakistan's head on a platter ? That is a very weak response. Just because India is preparing for the worst possible situation of fighting a two front war with Pakistan and China means India wants Pakistan's head on a platter ? I knew you did not have satisfactory justification for that outrageous and ill founded statement .

It's getting tiresome to spoon-feed you guys. I gave one example to show how Indian-Pakistan rivalry is alive and well. There are many other areas where India and Pakistan have locked horns -- Afghanistan being another example. There are more, if you get my drift.

but sir it still dosent clears why will US take a dirct panga with China & Pakistan for Indian Interests when it(US&NATO) very well know we will still be of no use to its strategic goal's in the regeon & they cant control India by any means?????????

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Understand that, and you will understand what's going on.

 

[true_indian]

The Soviet intervention was about as direct as it can get. I posted the transcript of the Soviet Commander above where he describes actually aiming their missile systems.

The point was that the USSR was not in the habit of challenging the USN directly for just any country. The relationship with India was special, indeed. Russia was India's primary weapons supplier; it directly challenged the USN on India's behalf.

NAM? yeah sure!

Again, you are giving Russian's perspective without a source. It was height of cold war and Indira Gandhi requested Soviet help in case of American aggression. Soviet might have agreed more because of their enmity with US than their friendship with India. No matter, when you claim something, you need to provide proof to substantiate it. Otherwise, what's the difference between you or a rupeenews author?

 

[GURU DUTT]

It's getting tiresome to spoon-feed you guys. I gave one example to show how Indian-Pakistan rivalry is alive and well. There are many other areas where India and Pakistan have locked horns -- Afghanistan being another example. There are more, if you get my drift.



"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Understand that, and you will understand what's going on.

thats so true we can & are expereancing the same (PAK-CHINA alliance) but US is still some 8000 miles to get any real benefit out of it , so for this short lived "KICK"if i may say WHY US will enrage a powerhouse like China or a Most Imp NON NATO Ally like Pakistan ????????

 

[Perceptron]

Let's discuss that when the US grants special exemptions to these countries and sponsors their membership in completely unrelated forums. The fact is that the US understands the regional dynamics extremely well, including the real Indian agenda.

Lol, the entire premises of this claptrap ignores the South East Asian region as a whole into the US jigsaw of Asian domination, which is a far more complex problem to look at and you want to put on blinders and view Pakistan as the last citadel of American expansionist interests in Asia. Pakistan has, is and will be small fry for American interests. The challenges for US lie in the ASEAN region with Malaysia tilting towards China with growing Chinese clout and will pull out all stops to reverse the "domino" effect Ala the Cold War era like it did to the Soviets. Pakistan cannot influence any of the CARs leave alone Asia, so pop goes your balloon of Pakistani self-worth.