Posted on 11/29/2006 6:25:04 PM PST by mylife
Bush is really stupid, isn't he?
He is truly looking at "the big picture"
I difficult situation to be sure.
How does India help in any of these "joint" projects? What does India know about promoting stable democratic governments? Their own leaders have been assassinated what, half a dozen times in the last half a century? As far as "co-operating" in the sciences and technology, translate that to mean that we educate Indians here in the States so that they can go back to India and work for a tenth the price of a US worker, while training another battalion of coolies to take over more of our jobs. They teaching US much about agriculture? Are we shipping a lot of illicit drugs to THEM? How about trafficking in human slaves or terror? See a lot of Americans blowing up mosques around the world?
In other words, this is being sold as a symbiosis, but in truth, it only benefits the weaker of the two: India. They're milking our fear of China for everything they can get. And it's working. We're fast turning them into a superpower, but only at our own expense. If China comes in with more money in its wheelbarrow, India will bolt in a Bangalore second. That's the danger you run when you buy your "friends."
India will rise in power. I suggest we work together to hold China and Jihadis in balance.
Why don't you bother looking into the establishment of a democratic Bangladesh,promotion of democracy in Nepal & Afghanistan before asking what India knows??& How many Indian leaders have been assasinated while in office??
India will cozy up to China............provided they give up 20,000 sq.miles of Indian territory,stop pointing nukes at India & stop arming Pakistan.IOW,Never.
I respectfully disagree.
A "Khomeini" led Pakistan?.......I hope we nail things down in the Middle East before this happens.
...and it will.
Pakistan is a country that has lots of nukes as we speak. Throw in some Islamic Jihadists, shake well, and you have a prescription for disaster.
We've got a huge problem on the horizon, something that never seems to come up. It's Pakistan.
Please tell me you're not citing Bangladesh as an example of anything but disaster on a grand scale. The establishment of that state was marked by one of the greatest humanitarian horrors since the Holocaust! To this day, the "democratic" government of Bangladesh can barely manage its affairs.
As to Nepal and Afghanistan, how does India deserve any credit for either of those? Government in Nepal is a hodgepodge of constitutional, parliamentary, and monarchical relics, owning much more to England than to India. And the Karzai government is a product of Allied power, with some minimal assistance from Delhi in subduing the Pakastani/Kashmir wilderness.
From Mohandas Gandhi on, the fate of Indian leaders is to die at the hand of some internal extremist. M. Gandhi, Indira, Rajiv ... all dead.
India has made tremendous strides from the days of the Raj's, but it has little to offer the United States. However, as terrified as we are of the Yellow Peril, we'll mortgage our future to the good lads in Hyderabad, who will gladly pocket our money and look for another "john."
That is, if India wants to be a vassal state/colony of China.
China, like Russia, is good at winning influence among the failed states and thug dictatorships of the world--places that have nothing to lose from falling under the influence of a slavemater state.
India will never, ever ally with China, because such an alliance, from China's point of view, can only mean that they own India.
America's freedom is, as always, a source of strength.
India was not responsible for that holocaust,an American ally was.If anything India was responsible for putting an end to the slaughter.Bangladesh is nowhere near perfect,but it's still far more stable than other Slammies like Pakiland & Saudi Arabia.
Err who are the main indegnious backers of the current Afghan regime???Folks called the Northern Alliance, who were supported by Russia,India & Uzbekistan among others.None of the current "allied" powers were around at that time.Indian troops would almost certainly have been in Afghanistan hadn't Musharraf made it explicitly condtional that Israel & India stay out of drive to throw out the Talibs.Indian public & private enterprises are among the largest contributors to Afghanistan's reconstruction efforts -building roads,electricity lines,training police & diplomatic officers among many others.If Nepal is starting to move out of it's feudal morass, to that of democratic republic,it is because of Indian pressure.Rajiv Gandhi's sanctions against the Nepalese king in the late 80s hastened the elections for a new Parliament.
Other than those 3,which other leaders can you quote??As I said,only one of them was killed in office,with Gandhi living with virtually no security.Kennedy & King died a few years apart from each-while Reagan & Ford had very close shaves with bullets.Those weren't the Al-Qaeda,if Im not mistaken.
C'mon IronJack, you see the regional situation, don't you?.....give me a shout.........
The Northern Alliance was SUPPORTED by Russia???? Are you daft???? It was the NA under Massoud that kicked the Russians OUT of Afghanistan!
Indian public & private enterprises are among the largest contributors to Afghanistan's reconstruction efforts -building roads,electricity lines,training police & diplomatic officers among many others.
I didn't say India isn't BENEFITING from the Taliban overthrow in Afghanistan. They're always there when there's a buck to be made.
If Nepal is starting to move out of it's feudal morass, to that of democratic republic,it is because of Indian pressure.Rajiv Gandhi's sanctions against the Nepalese king in the late 80s hastened the elections for a new Parliament.
India provided a refuge for the monarchs when they fled the democratic revolution! You've sure got a distorted view of history.
Other than those 3,which other leaders can you quote??As I said,only one of them was killed in office,with Gandhi living with virtually no security.
How many more do I HAVE to name, for cripes' sake?!?! You've had three leaders shot to death in just over 50 years! Don't tell me that entitles you to export democracy. You don't know the meaning of the word!
Kennedy & King died a few years apart from each-while Reagan & Ford had very close shaves with bullets.
No one knows why Kennedy was shot. Ford and Reagan were assaulted by nutcases, not for political reasons. And King was not an elected official, or even political for that matter.
I think you are the one who is ignorant here-Russia was the biggest backer of the N.A esp it's Uzbek & Tajik elements with the likes of Iran,Uzbekistan & India pitching in.Just google up 'Northern Alliance & Russia'.
About Nepal-Im referring to the period of the 80s & after,which you've conviniently ignored.If anything in recent upheaval,the King was backed by China & Pakistan.
& exactly,who is entitled to export democracy???Countries which are flawed or ones which have sustained tinpots as long as it suited them???
Well King & M.K Gandhi were the same-both were unelected who represented very relevant causes.
As to those allowed to export democracy, you can't very well export what you don't have. India's government will survive right up until some new extremist group decides to start assassinating leaders, then it will all come tumbling down, with each sect -- Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Westernized pseudo-Christian -- scrambling for its share of the wealth.
Even if the government remains relatively stable, the US shares no ideological ground with India. Indeed, that country much more in common with China than with the US. So since India's "friendship" is merely a purchased commodity, it is logical to believe that another consumer willing to pay more can purchase the same friendship out from under us.
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.