Would India allow US to use military bases?

[Jango]

Closed for moderation

Thread opened.

Concentrate on the topic now gents. And keep your private parts inside your pants.

 

[kṣamā]

{Respected members Please Skip To On Topic}

Ahh... what a sight of inbred morons !!!

People with learning disabilities are confusing "Access to bases" with "Access to equipment" and "Colonization" !! Man oh man some great learned even brought slavery blood into the equation while standing in line begging for US alms, WOW !! But it's not their fault they are taught to misunderstand everything, else why would a country with such a great heritage of art literature science be in such a dump. For crying it out loud that place used to be one of the cradles of civilization.

I wonder how these people where when US decided to tighten up their purse string, crying and pleading and begging so that they can stuff their pockets !! As far is being lap dog is concerned, last time I checked India dose not have port or base of no other country. But that cannot be said about some others here. They even take these ports/bases as badges of pride.

OnTopic: Anyways what the article means is "If and when required US armed forces can have access to bases. Like during a humanitarian mission they can stock and re-supply their vessels at our ports.". It dose not means " US armed forces have the ability to take up land areas in India and open up their bases". The "access" will have limitation of their own, and this dose not mean we have to do what US wants us to do. We can still deny them access to FOBs, if their presence over their presence there hampers our diplomatic relations. We have been playing balls with these big wigs for quite some time now. If anything that has taught us, it is that neutrality is the best way maintain our national interest.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

Great strategic partnership IF India has truly agreed to it. Chinese like are just mad that you are not cowering to them, and rather are standing up proud in that region.

 

[ayesha.a]

You people are squabbling prematurely. Did anybody notice the source of the article?

I would have expected at least the Indian members to recognize the questionable claims in the article. Any party that does all that is mentioned, would be committing political suicide. Don't you know how repugnant an idea it is to Indians, to lease out our military bases to anybody? And statements like " India can also get US to fight alongside it in case of a war." - seriously? That didn't set off your BS meters?

FFS, it is a piece of fiction. We did not even agree to the LSA when we bought C-17s and P-8Is, and now suddenly we are going to open our military bases to them?

I understand Chinese and Pakistani members wanting to mock India over this news, as I'm sure Indians would have done if a similar article was posted about those countries. But what I don't get is why Indian members are buying into this.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

None in big 5 have said no to India's candidature that include China, but it is US that can push India's candidature given its extra ordinary influence across the world.

US and NATO also warned us not to veto the resolution on Syria.

Guess what happened?

BBC News - China and Russia veto UN resolution condemning Syria

The US envoy to the UN said Washington was "outraged" by the vote.

Susan Rice, who walked out after the vote, said opposition to the resolution was a "cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people".


--------------


The US was so upset the US envoy actually stormed out of the room.


US 'outraged' after Russia, China veto Syria UN resolution - Jerusalem Post

 

[The Huskar]

ooo teri kal tak tu independent thay ?? ub refueling - maintaince aur bla bla agaya hey waah .... kamaal hey decision hotay he bohat saray PDF endians kay views he badal gaye haina hahahhahahahhaha

THANK YOU INDIA! you did what the whole world especially your neigbours expecting hahahha ANOTHER KAKA ready onthe name of SO CALLED Ally lol Independent to Dependent ka safar jari hey India ka lol I said this 2 years ago when India has got C17 & C130 lolzz Infact that is not only me, majority have same thought what America is going to do with India. You'll see how India become kaka of 21st century where as on the other side whole world minimize relations with US.

koi nahe ham b nahe maantay thay... woh b nahe maanthay thay ... koi nahe maanta tha -- India unforutntly become a state who even see the situation of whole Amrekans hubs still handing over whole India soon to US control --- inko is chakar may US nay koosh rakhna hey kay haan haan ap independent hain G hahah aur akar 2 3 Pakistan key khelaaf 2 3 batain karkay Indiansk okoosh karkay yehi kaam chalayga

fikar mat kar kakey.America aur Pakistan ki atut bandhan me hum tang nahi ladayenge.

 

[Rank]

fikar mat kar kakey.America aur Pakistan ki atut bandhan me hum tang nahi ladayenge.

bhi ham kya sare dunya especially tumharay sab neigbours aaj kal bohat bohat koosh hain u have no idea kaka we love India and US relations -- kise nay kaha tha America ke dushmani karkay tu mulk survive kya balkay taraki kargaye hain -- likin America kay doost rah kar jo haal huwa hey -- khair INDIA independent hey yaar bophat powerful hey sorry SUPA POAWA yaar chil maar hahhahahah

 

[ito]

US and NATO also warned us not to veto the resolution on Syria.

Guess what happened?

BBC News - China and Russia veto UN resolution condemning Syria

The US envoy to the UN said Washington was "outraged" by the vote.

Susan Rice, who walked out after the vote, said opposition to the resolution was a "cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people".


--------------


The US was so upset the US envoy actually stormed out of the room.


US 'outraged' after Russia, China veto Syria UN resolution - Jerusalem Post

what it has got to do with India's candidature?

can you post anything that say any of the P5 said no to India's candidature? you cannot ...because there are none

 

[Steakhouse]

what it has got to do with India's candidature?

can you post anything that say any of the P5 said no to India's candidature? you cannot ...because there are none

But the any P5 member can veto the resolution to add a new candidate into the membership.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

US and NATO also warned us not to veto the resolution on Syria.

Guess what happened?

BBC News - China and Russia veto UN resolution condemning Syria

The US envoy to the UN said Washington was "outraged" by the vote.

Susan Rice, who walked out after the vote, said opposition to the resolution was a "cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people".


--------------


The US was so upset the US envoy actually stormed out of the room.


US 'outraged' after Russia, China veto Syria UN resolution - Jerusalem Post

What does that have to do with voting for a permanent member of the security council.

You have no clue do you, about the intricacies involved and the maturity level of nations and its representatives. Probably think they all webcam eachother all day

 

[ito]

But the any P5 member can veto the resolution to add a new candidate into the membership.

Now tell me who would veto? The hardest thing is to get India's candidature on the table. Once it is on the table, it is given that India will become UNSC permanent member.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

what it has got to do with India's candidature?

can you post anything that say any of the P5 said no to India's candidature? you cannot ...because there are none

Sure. But the P5 are delaying any UNSC reforms, and have been doing so for over a decade now.

Delays in UNSC reforms will diminish its relevance: G4 bloc - Economic Times

May 10, 2014, 02.42PM IST

UNITED NATIONS: The G4 bloc of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan has said "status quo" and "artificial delays" in implementing the UNSC reforms will diminish the relevance of the United Nations, even as Pakistan called the grouping a "minority" that wants to reconfigure the Security Council to secure "their national interests."

---------------------------

Think about it, if the entire P5 was so eager to let new members in, they would have been in over a decade ago when they first started pushing for it.

Instead it is delays, delays, delays.

That said, I have no problem with India in the UNSC as long as it does not have "veto" power. And so far, no member of the P5 has promised to expand veto powers, let alone all of them.

 

[Steakhouse]

What does that have to do with voting for a permanent member of the security council.

You have no clue do you, about the intricacies involved and the maturity level of nations and its representatives. Probably think they all webcam eachother all day

He imply China and Russia can veto any new member to be add into the P5 membership that US can't do anything about it.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

But the any P5 member can veto the resolution to add a new candidate into the membership.

Yes, but there is a lot more pressure to deny a country worthy of entry vs. veto power on some resolution against sanctioning a country. These are not some childish games

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Interesting......all the predictions abt india and US is proving true!

--
like ?