Posted on 05/28/2007 2:34:37 AM PDT by Arjun
Somebody recruit this guy.
I do understand your point. I also have the other point. We are getting beat over the head on a daily basis by bullshit artists and scuttlebut mongers.
I may have not picked the best metaphor for attacking the issue, but I’m not a deep thoughtist either.
I do know we are hearing more and more of passing blame on to some figure head that belongs on us as individuals. No one can force the fight against the domestic enemy and their sympathizers from the top down. It has to come from the bottom up.
Iraq isn’t the last battle of this GWoT. We are more likely just in the opening phases of a true global conflict.
Also, I hope I dont come off as trying to pick on you or anyone else here. I’m not an adept writer so sometimes I come out as unintentionally hostile or provoking.
This line of stuff started as goofing off and kind of took on other meaning as I went along. That’s my bad.
There sure seem to have been a lot of undisciplined know-it-alls at the CIA. I wonder if all this reform and change at the top has allowed civilian control to be established, now. Too much finger pointing at presidents probably seeks to obscure the fact that we had a rogue agency that completely failed to do its job.
The question that really needs to asked is where would Pakistan be today if they weren't nuclear ?
My guess being a nuclear country actually it more stable.
The second question is where would Pakistan be today if they never went Nuclear and India did?
Inquiring minds want to know
“I truly cannot name one positive thing that he did”
Jimmy Carter did impliment some civil service reform which accomplished modest good. Government employees were made somewhat more accountable for their actions. Also, he signed (after initially opposing) the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That’s about it.
Jimmy Carter’s apologists claim that he was a victim of forces beyond his control. That’s mostly nonsense. OPEC’s price-gouging was not his fault, but his pandering to Arabs did nothing to stop it. Also, he undercut the national America’s allies repeatedly. He said that the U.S. was suffering “national malaise,” but Carter himself was the main cause of it. He is among the worst Presidents of modern times.
So what!!
Maybe India shouldn’t have sided with the Soviet Union and then this would have never happened.
Actually US took sides before India. So India didnt really have a choice.
India sided with the Soviets since 1947. The US supported Pakistan because of Nehru's hostility to the US and his support for our communist enemies. You picked the wrong side of the Cold War.
During the Kennedy administration India was an ally. JFK was using India to spy on china in the 60s. The relations were very good.
During the 71 war when Nixon supported Pak, India had to move to the Soviet camp in order to prevent the Chinese from taking advantage of the situation.
Crapski.The Pakis were seen as inherently more stable than India-more homogenous,usually Islamic dictatorship which is why Lyndon Johnson decided to invest more from the mid-60s than a supposedly unstable India.India’s relationship with the Soviets till that period was anything but substantial.The hostile Nehru you talk about had very close ties to Eisenhower & Kennedy-both of whom not provided considerable military & technical aid,including during the Sino-Indian war of ‘62.
Sorry guys, US relations with Pakistan date back to the 50’s and India was already in the Soviet camp since before then. I know you’d like to rewrite history so you can “blame America first,” but really you need to blame yourselves for making a foolish decision to oppose US interests.
Thats right. Just deny anything that questions your deep rooted prejudices.
Foolish and self defeating American support to a tyrannical dictatorship that butchered 100s of thousands of innocent bangladeshis is justified but Indian govts last ditch effort to prevent Chinese aggression through a deal with the Russians isnt?
You dont have any sense of history.
In the 50’s Nehru was singing the praises of Hindi-Chini bhai bhai. India supported the Chi-coms when they were Moscow’s allies. Then when they turned on you, of course you came running to us for help, and of course we gave it to you! You’re welcome!
Thats right. Just like US helped the Tibetan people.
Your tyrannical Soviet allies killed tens of millions of innocent people. You are the one who doesn't know history.
India was a impoverished country with 90% illiteracy barely managing to survive. US had won the WW2 and was on the Security council. You have no sense at all.
Past is past. USSR used to support India, US used to support Osama, Saddam Hussein, china and Pakistan. But modern realities necessitate greater alliance between India and US, if democratic norms are to prevail over communism and Islamic radicalism.
I agree with several of your other posts Joe, the situation in India wrt Maoists is very alarming indeed.
Many Indians are concerned as well, but as along as we got communist political parties, there cannot be a military/police solution to the Naxalite problem. Otherwise, they would create a lot of political instability - a risk which no one is willing to take. Hence, they are only pursuing negotiations, which are not being effective as they hope.
If India were a military dictatorship, it would’ve been a cakewalk handling these ragtag bunch of militants.
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.