Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Soviet vetoes blamed by US for Pakistan's 1971 division
Dawn ^ | 28 February 2005 Monday | Dawn

Posted on 02/28/2005 1:36:19 AM PST by CarrotAndStick

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last
To: Do not dub me shapka broham

There is evidence to prove that Nixon was personally concerned about Yahya & wanted India to take the pressure off & he with Kissinger were willing to tie up with Mao,who mobilised a few divisions on the Indo-Sino border(which were deterred by Soviet warnings).Nixon's personal affiliation towards India is not too pleasing as well-There are reportedly transcripts where he made fun of the "reproductive habits" of Indians & Indira Gandhi's stubborness,which was more than revealed in the 1974 nuclear test,India's first.


21 posted on 02/28/2005 6:20:30 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: risk; Cronos; CarrotAndStick; Gengis Khan; investigateworld
INS Vikrant,the first Asian aircraft carrier after WW2 with her complement of Hawker SeaHawk fighters.My dad was on the INS Beas,a frigate which was part of the Vikrant battlegroup, deployed against East-Pakistani Coastal installations in the 71 war!!
22 posted on 02/28/2005 6:29:37 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki; risk; Genghis Khan; genghis; CarrotAndStick
You can take personal asides-even seemingly indefensible ones-and distort them beyond recognition, in order to suit any sort of preexisting political agenda one might have.

There were comments made by Nixon-while he was still in office-that many would construe as being grotesquely antisemitic.

Yet, this man-a devout Quaker-had some of his closest personal and political relationships-throughout his career in public service, and beyond-with Jews, and was one of the staunchest defenders of the state of Israel ever to occupy the Oval Office.

America's longstanding-if turbulent-relationship with Pakistan is something that predates Nixon, and which has existed, in one form or another, since the Eisenhower administration.

To paint India-which was governed, for much of this period, by a nationalist, Communist-affiliated dictator, who did not respect the essential human rights of religious minorities within her own nation-in a completely benign light is as ridiculous as whitewashing the sins of Pakistan.

23 posted on 02/28/2005 7:04:13 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Yep the same "communist dictator" you talk about would have been forced to tilt towards the West if the Johnson administration had acted with common sense w.r.t the subcontinent.FYI,the UK,France & US were India's largest arms suppliers till Johnson came into the picture.Things went further downhill with Indira & Nixon.

If Indira didn't show a bit of respect to the rights of India's minorities,India would have ceased to exist over 20 years back.That's not been the case.

About Israel,let's face the fact-If the US didn't resupply the Israeli military with conventional arms,they would have unleashed their 13 nukes on the Arab hordes-including ones like Saudi Arabia(American ally since 1945) for good measure.


24 posted on 02/28/2005 7:29:32 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

"Winning the Coldwar using China & Islamic fundamentalism(as seen in Afghanistan in the 80s) has created many a new headache for the US."

*yawn* How often do we need to debunk this lie?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html


Qwinn


25 posted on 02/28/2005 7:38:00 AM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn

Nobody referred to OBL anywhere.But the CIA DID help out Pakistan set up training centres in it's territory to train "Freedom fighters"-what does the US call those folks now??& who supplied Stinger missiles to those freedom fighters to take out Soviet helos & jets???


26 posted on 02/28/2005 7:42:28 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: risk; CarrotAndStick

Are you forgetting the authorised armssales to the PRC from the late 70s till Tianammen????If im not mistaken,Bill Clinton was a nobody back then & republican presidents held the White House for a good chunk of that period.Sales of items like torpedoes(check out China's current ASW torp),helos,LM-2500 gas turbines,avionics & dual use systems took place during that period.It was around the sametime that Deng XioPing realised the pathetic state of the PLA & saw the sore need for modernisation.So was the US & Europe(yep France,Britain,Germany all had their pies too) responsible in part for helping in the start of the modernisation of the PLA???It's something a lot of folks won't like to ponder over.


27 posted on 02/28/2005 8:06:10 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Supporting a fledgling democracy-even one that is tangentially aligned with one's professed nemeses-is one thing.

However, supplying arms to a nation that is led by an aspiring despot is another matter altogether.

The relationship between India and the United States only began to truly solidify under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi, who was a pro-Western, democratic, anti-terror ally.

28 posted on 02/28/2005 8:21:43 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Non-sequitur. Big difference building competitors to the Soviet Union and continuing to build them after the Soviet Union. Also, when people you aid later turn on you, the treachery and ingratitude also changes the equation. We have been fortunate that for the last 100 years recipients of aid, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, the mujahadeen, have all been stupid enough to act or telegraph their real or new intentions before gaining a decisive advantage.


29 posted on 02/28/2005 8:23:04 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Eat-Mo-Possum

Still, knowing you are being followed is not quite the same as having a lock on your quarry's noisy propeller.


30 posted on 02/28/2005 8:29:42 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

You forgot Reagan who had a great personal equation with Rajiv!!!His first words when he met Indira Gandhi were "let's put the past behind us".Reagan was a person who mixed pragmatism with values-hence he was both considered as an adversary to the USSR & yet could be seen as an understanding friend.Nixon doesn't come anywhere near him.


PS-Nehru enjoyed a pretty good rapport with Eisenhower & to a lesser extent with Kennedy.


31 posted on 02/28/2005 8:31:39 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Differences exist only because we want to see it that way.China armed folks like (Mullah infested) Iran & communist rebels in Africa while the USSR was still around.

The US support to the PRC during the Soviet years made an cripple capable of walking on it's own.Anyone aware of the PLA's progress will know that it started in the late 70s.To blame it all on Clinton is just childish.


32 posted on 02/28/2005 8:35:15 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
He did.

However, the one-party, socialist model that he embraced-like that of his Mapai/Labor counterparts in the early days of Israel-forced his country to squander numerous opportunities for prosperity and growth.

If Jawaharlal Nehru had been able to divest himself of his timeworn socialist nostrums, perhaps India wouldn't have had to wait until the mid-90s in order to experience an economic and political renaissance.

33 posted on 02/28/2005 8:38:52 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Nope!!I have a rather different take on it.A lot of economists(including "rightist" types) say that Nehruvian socialism was understandable & in some cases,necessary for India till the 70s-it set India on the path to industrialisation,agro-self sufficiency & indegnious science & technology initiatives(if you remember a lot of countries,including Britain had similar policies then).If India had begun liberalising the 70s instead of the late 80s,she would'nt be far behind the PRC.But not only did Indira do nothing,she made the socialist setup entrenched.


34 posted on 02/28/2005 8:43:59 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: risk
We had a whole world to save.
 
Yeah right! Looks like you have been watching too many Hollywood movies. Thanks for saving the world.  </sarcasm>
 
I'm sorry we didn't do exactly what India wanted us to do at that exact moment.
 
Well actually........ I'm sorry WE didn't do exactly what US wanted us to do at that exact moment. You guys did nothing except threatening us. And WE DID what  we need to do.
 
Remember, you're either with us or you're against us.
 
But you guys are still with Pakistan arnt you. You are still with them dude. Look who is talking!
 
Not choosing is choosing.
Exactly. So isnt it high time you choose between India and Pakistan?
 
India just chose the wrong path, as expedient as it may have been.
 
Yep and so Bangladesh is today free and more democratic than "YOUR ALLY" Pakistan.
 
We've forgiven, but we sure haven't forgotten.
 
You forgiving us! Are you drunk?
 
While the Soviets was murdering and Gulaging millions of their own people, there's no excuse for India having sided with Moscow.
 
And what excuse did US have to side with a tyrannical regime in Pakistan that butchered millions of Bengalis?
 
India chose wrong,
 
No we didn't, it was the US which chose wrong and we did the right thing.

35 posted on 02/28/2005 9:21:54 AM PST by Gengis Khan ("There is no glory in incomplete action." -- Gengis Khan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

You brought up China. How much of the Soviet-India 'alliance' of that period was due to the border war fought between India & China? Perhaps the Soviets were a more effective counter to Chinese territorial ambitions in the Himalayas? Don't know myself. Just asking.


36 posted on 02/28/2005 9:28:18 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

It's so pathetic to see you try to justify your affinity with the Soviet Union during the darkest depths of the Cold War. It's also quite revealing of India's lack of moral clarity. Keep it up, though. Don't let me discourage you at all.


37 posted on 02/28/2005 9:36:10 AM PST by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

During the 62 war,India was allied to the US,which infact supplied weaponry to India.The Soviets appeared to stay "neutral" as they were allied to the PRC & actively wooing India.This continued till upto around the middle of 1965,when the equations was reversed-the Soviets started squabbling with the PRC & India felt snubbed by the US & UK at the expense of Pakistan & on the issue of armssales.This brought India close to the USSR,which was a big deterrent against further Chinese ambitions,while Pakistan chipped in by helping out on US-China relations.


38 posted on 02/28/2005 9:37:35 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: risk

Allying with folks like Imperial Iran & Pakistan was not exactly moral clarity on America's part.Let's face it,if you want to get things done,you have prepared to get into bed with scumbags.India & America have both done it.


39 posted on 02/28/2005 9:39:41 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

"Nobody referred to OBL anywhere.But the CIA DID help out Pakistan set up training centres in it's territory to train "Freedom fighters"-what does the US call those folks now??& who supplied Stinger missiles to those freedom fighters to take out Soviet helos & jets???"

I'll assume that by "Pakistan" you meant "Afghanistan".

The answer to your first question - "What does the US call those folks now??" - is the "Northern Alliance", who sided with us when we deposed the Taliban.

Given that, the answer to your 2nd question doesn't matter much.

Qwinn


40 posted on 02/28/2005 9:40:16 AM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson