Nixon and Kissingers forgotten shame

ramakrishna

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
303
Likes
168
Re: Nixon kept quiet on Hindu genocide by Pakistani Army

I think your problem is really penis envy, since the real threats to India are China and Pakistan.:hmm:
Where as US helping Pakistan financially and technology wise which are transferred to china by Pakistan ..... this will say all the things
 

Dinesh_Kumar

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
518
Likes
231
US perception of India largely depends on the whim of successive US presidents. After all, can India be worse in any way than Pakistan, whom the US is close with? Certain Hard Decisions have to be taken in the National Interest in future, to ensure India's survival in a hostile and dangerous environment.
 

Ash

New Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
527
Likes
530
Country flag
Think about what you are saying. If people believe they are hopeless, then they will be. And they will always need the White Man to lift them up.

W.G, that cartoon is quite derogatory, where did you find it the KKK newsweek?:p
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Re: Nixon kept quiet on Hindu genocide by Pakistani Army

The USA has been and will always be India's enemy, whether overtly or covertly. I've always thought that India needs to make decent long range ICBM's that can reach the U.S. In the future, it may become a openly hostile nation.
I challenge you, @ramakrishna, @The Messiah, @trackwhack, et al. (or anybody else) to explain what hostile action by the USA would provoke a missile strike against CONUS by India. And explain how India would defend itself in the aftermath.

What military resources would India need to have for success? Would India need to lower its defenses against China and Pakistan to attack the USA? Would Indians need to eat grass to have the required resources? What about the targeting of US cities where there are Indians living, working, and studying in the US?

And do you really believe India is justified by US action of 40 years ago?

Put your collective brainpower at producing a rational scenario for what you propose.

I say you can't. The idea is absurd.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
The US is neither India's friend, nor India's enemy; it is simply Asia's offshore balancer, while India is Asia's 3rd-ranked power. So long as relations between China and Russia are excellent, the US will use India to hedge, not out of affinity for any shared values, but for the vital American interest of seeing Asia divided.
 

Free Karma

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
2,372
Likes
2,600
This would only be saddening to people who actually believe the U.S to be a paragon of goodness and hollywood-esque crap like "Defender of Freedom, Leader of the "free" World" and things of the like.

Ultimately they do what is good for them and what aids their objectives, there has to be some profit in it.Throw in stuff like the above to fool people for public support to make it look like the only hope is external intervention

Pakistan was at that point an ally so going against them was obviously a no-no, hence there was no genocide happening! It's simple.No one should really be surprised.

Each country really needs to take care of itself , if you have some friends ..then good, but dont always count on them.
 

kseeker

Retired
New Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
2,515
Likes
2,126
Ref: Ahead of 1971 war, Nixon branded his envoy to India as traitor - Times Of India

WASHINGTON: Reluctant to hear anything against then Pakistan president Gen Yahya Khan and his army ahead of the 1971 war, the then US President Richard Nixon branded his own envoy to India as a "traitor" and an "Indian mouthpiece", says a new book based on declassified documents.

In fact, Nixon wanted to fire Kenneth B Keating, the then US ambassador to India, because he refused to toe his line and instead had the courage and strength to speak the truth to the President that his closest ally Pakistan was indulging in a genocide, says the book 'The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide'.


The book is authored by Gary Bass, who is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University.

"Nixon said, 'Keating's a traitor' and told (the then secretary of state Henry) Kissinger that they should fire the ambassador. The Indians, Nixon said, were 'Awful but they are getting some assistance from Keating, of course.'

"Kissinger agreed: 'A lot of assistance; he is practically their mouthpiece'," says the book.

"He (Nixon) added, 'He has gone native. As I told you, I saw the Indians and listened to their complaints and Keating kept interrupting and saying but you forgot to mention this or that'. (This was false: in the meetings in Delhi, Keating only spoke once, to break an awkward silence in the conversation with Indira Gandhi)," the book said.

"Nixon said, 'I think we ought to get moving on him; he is 71 years old'. 'Yes', replied Kissinger, 'but he would do us a lot of damage now' — the inevitable congressional outrage if their old colleague was pushed out. 'We should wait until things quiet down'. Nixon said, 'Two or 3 months and then I think we ought to do it'," according to the book.

In another meeting at the Oval Office, Nixon wondered why every Ambassador who goes to India falls in love with it.

"Highlighting US donations for the refugees, he for once mentioned 'human suffering', and said that they must 'go all out — all out — on the relief side'. But then he said, 'Now let me be very blunt', and ripped into Kenneth Keating: 'Every Ambassador who goes to India falls in love with India'," the book quotes Nixon as saying.

According to the author, this direct presidential attack was so far out of bounds that Kissinger and Saunders censored it out of their official record of the conversation for the State Department.

"Nixon told the senior state department officials that they 'have to cool off the pro-Indians in the state department and out in South Asia'. He added that fewer Americans swooned for Pakistan, 'because the Pakistanis are a different breed. The Pakistanis are straightforward — and sometimes extremely stupid. The Indians are more devious, sometimes so smart that we fall for their line'," the book said.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
The Week | Nixon viewed American empathy for India as mental disorder

"The most basic was the Cold War: presidents of the US since Harry Truman had been frustrated by India's policy of nonalignment, which Nixon, much like his predecessors, viewed as Nehruvian posturing. India was on suspiciously good terms with the Soviet Union," the book says.

Another reason was realpolitik. "Some Americans romanticised India's democracy but not Nixon. He was unimpressed with the world's largest republic, believing to the end of his days that the US should base its foreign policy on what a country did outside its borders, not on whether it treated its people decently at home," the author says.

He described Americans' popular sympathies for India as a "psychological disorder", he says. On top of that, Bass says, there was a mutual loathing between Nixon and Indira Gandhi. He had not cared for Jawaharlal Nehru, either, but she had an extraordinary ability to get under his skin.
It's pretty funny that Nixon, universally regarded as the most rational and calculating US President, was better able to empathize with Mao than he was able to with Indira Gandhi or his own State Department (absent Henry Kissinger).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top