Burger Boys - Indo-US relations, General news & discussion

Nicky G

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
3,608
Likes
10,552
Country flag
Interesting interpretation.

Since the Antifa attacks on Portland courthouse were at night when no work was going on, it's not domestic terrorism. However, that's not the case with Capitol riots, so that is domestic terrorism.

Clever guy. Not sure what the statute says.

 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
944
Likes
1,005
Country flag
Old article but discloses the world Invaders' dream of being a superpower for eternity.

U.S. STRATEGY PLAN CALLS FOR INSURING NO RIVALS DEVELOP
By Patrick E. Tyler

In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting stage, the Defense Department asserts that America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territory of the former Soviet Union.

A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states that part of the American mission will be "convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."

The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy. Rejecting Collective Approach

To perpetuate this role, the United States "must sufficiently account for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order," the document states.

With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism, the strategy that emerged from World War II when the five victorious powers sought to form a United Nations that could mediate disputes and police outbreaks of violence.


Though the document is internal to the Pentagon and is not provided to Congress, its policy statements are developed in conjunction with the National Security Council and in consultation with the President or his senior national security advisers. Its drafting has been supervised by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's Under Secretary for Policy. Mr. Wolfowitz often represents the Pentagon on the Deputies Committee, which formulates policy in an interagency process dominated by the State and Defense departments.

The document was provided to The New York Times by an official who believes this post-cold-war strategy debate should be carried out in the public domain. It seems likely to provoke further debate in Congress and among America's allies about Washington's willingness to tolerate greater aspirations for regional leadership from a united Europe or from a more assertive Japan.

Together with its attachments on force levels required to insure America's predominant role, the policy draft is a detailed justification for the Bush Administration's "base force" proposal to support a 1.6-million-member military over the next five years, at a cost of about $1.2 trillion. Many Democrats in Congress have criticized the proposal as unnecessarily expensive.

Implicitly, the document foresees building a world security arrangement that pre-empts Germany and Japan from pursuing a course of substantial rearmament, especially nuclear armament, in the future.

In its opening paragraph, the policy document heralds the "less visible" victory at the end of the cold war, which it defines as "the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic 'zone of peace.' "

The continuation of this strategic goal explains the strong emphasis elsewhere in the document and in other Pentagon planning on using military force, if necessary, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in such countries as North Korea, Iraq, some of the successor republics to the Soviet Union and in Europe.

Nuclear proliferation, if unchecked by superpower action, could tempt Germany, Japan and other industrial powers to acquire nuclear weapons to deter attack from regional foes. This could start them down the road to global competition with the United States and, in a crisis over national interests, military rivalry.

The policy draft appears to be adjusting the role of the American nuclear arsenal in the new era, saying, "Our nuclear forces also provide an important deterrent hedge against the possibility of a revitalized or unforeseen global threat, while at the same time helping to deter third party use of weapons of mass destruction through the threat of retaliation." U.N. Action Ignored

The document is conspicuously devoid of references to collective action through the United Nations, which provided the mandate for the allied assault on Iraqi forces in Kuwait and which may soon be asked to provide a new mandate to force President Saddam Hussein to comply with his cease-fire obligations.

The draft notes that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action" as in the Persian Gulf war, but that "we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished."

What is most important, it says, is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that demands quick response.

Bush Administration officials have been saying publicly for some time that they were willing to work within the framework of the United Nations, but that they reserve the option to act unilaterally or through selective coalitions, if necessary, to protect vital American interests.

But this publicly stated strategy did not rule out an eventual leveling of American power as world security stabilizes and as other nations place greater emphasis on collective international action through the United Nations.

In contrast, the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders "must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Sent to Administrators

The document is known in Pentagon parlance as the Defense Planning Guidance, an internal Administration policy statement that is distributed to the military leaders and civilian Defense Department heads to instruct them on how to prepare their forces, budgets and strategy for the remainder of the decade. The policy guidance is typically prepared every two years, and the current draft will yield the first such document produced after the end of the cold war.

Senior Defense Department officials have said the document will be issued by Defense Secretary Cheney this month. According to a Feb. 18 memorandum from Mr. Wolfowitz's deputy, Dale A. Vesser, the policy guidance will be issued with a set of "illustrative" scenarios for possible future foreign conflicts that might draw United States military forces into combat.

These scenarios, issued separately to the military services on Feb. 4, were detailed in a New York Times article last month. They postulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea, as well as a Russian assault on Lithuania and smaller military contingencies that United States forces might confront in the future.

These hypothetical conflicts, coupled with the policy guidance document, are meant to give military leaders specific information about the kinds of military threats they should be prepared to meet as they train and equip their forces. It is also intended to give them a coherent strategy framework in which to evaluate various force and training options. Fears of Proliferation

In assessing future threats, the document places great emphasis on how "the actual use of weapons of mass destruction, even in conflicts that otherwise do not directly engage U.S. interests, could spur further proliferation which in turn would threaten world order."

"The U.S. may be faced with the question of whether to take military steps to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction," it states, noting that those steps could include pre-empting an impending attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons "or punishing the attackers or threatening punishment of aggressors through a variety of means," including attacks on the plants that manufacture such weapons.

Noting that the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is up for renewal in 1995, the document says, "should it fail, there could ensue a potentially radical destabilizing process" that would produce unspecified "critical challenges which the U.S. and concerned partners must be prepared to address."

The draft guidance warns that "both Cuba and North Korea seem to be entering periods of intense crisis -- primarily economic, but also political -- which may lead the governments involved to take actions that would otherwise seem irrational." It adds, "the same potential exists in China."

For the first time since the Defense Planning Guidance process was initiated to shape national security policy, the new draft states that the fragmentation of the former Soviet military establishment has eliminated the capacity for any successor power to wage global conventional war.

But the document qualifies its assessment, saying, "we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or effort to re-incorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus and possibly others."

It says that though U.S. nuclear targeting plans have changed "to account for welcome developments in states of the former Soviet Union," American strategic nuclear weapons will continue to target vital aspects of the former Soviet military establishment. The rationale for the continuation of this targeting policy is that the United States "must continue to hold at risk those assets and capabilities that current -- and future -- Russian leaders or other nuclear adversaries value most" because Russia will remain "the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."

Until such time as the Russian nuclear arsenal has been rendered harmless, "we continue to face the possibility of robust strategic nuclear forces in the hands of those who might revert to closed, authoritarian, and hostile regimes," the document says. It calls for the "early introduction" of a global anti-missile system. Plan for Europe

In Europe, the Pentagon paper asserts that "a substantial American presence in Europe and continued cohesion within the Western alliance remain vital," but to avoid a competitive relationship from developing, "we must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO."

The draft states that with the elimination of United States short-range nuclear weapons in Europe and similar weapons at sea, the United States should not contemplate any withdrawal of its nuclear-strike aircraft based in Europe and, in the event of a resurgent threat from Russia, "we should plan to defend against such a threat" farther forward on the territories of Eastern Europe "should there be an Alliance decision to do so."

This statement offers an explicit commitment to defend the former Warsaw Pact nations from Russia. It suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf. And to help stabilize the economies and democratic development in Eastern Europe, the draft calls on the European Community to offer memberships to Eastern European countries as soon as possible.

In East Asia, the report says, the United States can draw down its forces further, but "we must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area.

"This well enable the United States to continue to contribute to regional security and stability by acting as a balancing force and prevent the emergence of a vacuum or a regional hegemon." In addition, the draft warns that any precipitous withdrawal of United States military forces could provoke an unwanted response from Japan, and the document states, "we must also remain sensitive to the potentially destabilizing effects that enhanced roles on the part of our allies, particularly Japan but also possibly Korea, might produce."

In the event that peace negotiations between the two Koreas succeed, the draft recommends that the United States "should seek to maintain an alliance relationship with a unified democratic Korea."

 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
944
Likes
1,005
Country flag
The non-european world needs to understand that All of their (American) concerns regarding human rights, democracy, proliferation, regional security, balance of power etc, it is not about humanity's well being but maintaining their own hegemony and economic/military superiority. And we would be stupid to expect anything from a state that is barely 245 years old. It will take at least a thousand years for these looters and destroyers to achieve any parity with their contemporary states with civilisations.

Administration officials have been saying publicly for some time that they were willing to work within the framework of the United Nations, but that they reserve the option to act unilaterally or through selective coalitions, if necessary, to protect vital American interests.
What they mean is UN matters but it doesn't matter. That's what United Invaders State is all about. I think it's imperative of the world to see all American interests and acts from a racial angle because American interests doesn't invlove a state or interests of natives.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
944
Likes
1,005
Country flag
Socialist Beijing Biden reversing improved relations under trump


How Long Will Joe Biden Pretend Narendra Modi's India Is a Democratic Ally?
US was never a democracy. They know India won't be their proxy against anybody.

How can a racist pseudo democracy (not flawed but fake) become ally to India (with flaws but genuine, oldest and largest)?

How can India become partner with democracy whose goal is:
“to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge” and to maintain the continuity of the so-called “unipolar moment.”

The U.S. would like to see India as an ideological and strategic counter to China’s rise, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to overlook India’s fast-declining democratic standards.
The funnierst part about article is it appears to have been written by an Indian.

What they want is not democracy or peace and progress of human kind as whole but their own interests.I do agree however, India needs to upgrade its democratic standards. Start by giving voice to america's neglected and marginalised who have never been treated with respect by the so called self-declared guardians of democracy and human rights. We need to house and give voice to natives (cherokee, apache, maoris etc) in India and let them highlight their issues. Our democratic credentials don't rise as long as we are dealing with the invaders. We must establish ties with Americans who actually represent a civilisation of their own, not the ones who destroy it.

First of all though, we need to deal with dickhead journalists and editors who feel dutybound to badmouth their system and administration in foreign territories. I doubt if they are really Indians who see India as worse than others or being paid to write such. Why would they automatically assume a state with significant money and military as a better democracy? Do they know anything about the history and present state of these nations? Do they know what's their real objective and agenda in giving them a platform to shit on own people? I don't see them researching or discussing the divide between native and their genociders.

How can you even call a state of invaders as 'democracy' until and unless they are accepted by natives as their own and they embraced and assimilated with native cultures and faiths or way of life? Why don't they highlight their relation with native Indians in US and Canada? Is their a single native who feels pride in being American? At times we get to see and listen so much about black live or racism against asians but we don't see any noise made about native rights, why? Because Asian and African represent an unconquered world but the natives no longer have the land they own or numbers and lost all hope for fightback and reemergence. I think every US policy and moves should be scrutinised from racial angle.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
944
Likes
1,005
Country flag
Cherokee want the invaders to stop using their names from SUVs

The Cherokee Nation wants Jeep to stop using its name to sell the firm's classic sports utility vehicles.

Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr said "it's time" for companies and sports teams to retire Native American iconography from logos, mascots and other products.

Jeep has sold vehicles under the name since the 1970s. The current make is one of its most popular vehicles.
It said the name had been "carefully chosen", but was committed to dialogue.

"Our vehicle names have been carefully chosen and nurtured over the years to honour and celebrate Native American people for their nobility, prowess and pride," the company said in a statement.
"We are, more than ever, committed to a respectful and open dialogue with Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr."

'It does not honour us'
Jeep, which is owned by multinational Stellantis after the merger of Fiat Chrysler and PSA Group, is one of many corporations under pressure to update branding.

Amid widespread Black Lives Matter protests last summer, food companies such as PepsiCo said they would overhaul certain products, after criticism that its brands relied on racist tropes. Some sports teams have also announced changes.


The Cherokee Indians do not feel honoured by having their name on the side of a car

"I think we're in a day and age in this country where it's time for both corporations and team sports to retire the use of Native American names, images and mascots from their products, team jerseys and sports in general," Mr Hoskin said in a statement.

"I'm sure this comes from a place that is well-intended, but it does not honour us by having our name plastered on the side of a car."

He made the initial comment in an interview with trade magazine Car and Driver.

Native American imagery has been used in the US for decades to promote everything from cigars and butter to cars like the Cherokee, Pontiac and Winnebago.

A 2018 exhibition at the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian in Washington had a section dubbed simply "Indians are Everywhere".

Jeep reintroduced the Cherokee name to the US market in 2013, after temporarily dropping it roughly a decade earlier. It has announced plans to unveil an all-electric Jeep Cherokee later this year.

In 2013, the Cherokee Nation told the New York Times it had not been consulted and was opposed to stereotypes, but did not have an institutional stance on the matter.

 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
944
Likes
1,005
Country flag
"I'm sure this comes from a place that is well-intended, but it does not honour us by having our name plastered on the side of a car."
These natives are really naives. This is why they don't have their land, their honour with them. As Columbus described when he first met them, they (natives) were docile and trusting in nature; and, secondly, they wore gold jewelry. '

hmm.... they don't seem to wear gold anymore but they are still as stupid (I don't mean in negative but in a harmful way) .

Natives need a seat in UN.
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
21,929
Likes
72,277
Country flag
India, US army officials discuss defence cooperation in Executive Steering Group meet

Senior Army officials of India and the US discussed ways to enhance defence cooperation during the 24th edition of the Executive Steering Group (ESG) meeting of the two countries held here from February 22-24, a statement said on Thursday.

The meeting was attended by a 12-member delegation from the US Army in person and virtually by 40 officers from different locations from the US.

 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
18,262
Likes
64,170
Country flag
Do read..
======
"And some in India, in their dislike for the ruling dispensation, have actually gone so far as to advise Washington to challenge the Indian government on internal matters", says Harsh V Pant. A tendency unique to India among the major powers

 

Hari Sud

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
1,872
Likes
2,709
Country flag
US interests in India thru Rahul Bedi (Journalist) are warning India to sabotage potential sale of Brahmos missile to Philippines or anybody who wishes to buy them. CAATSA is being mentioned to be applied to Brahmos sale. US is so afraid of this missile that some day it may cause doom to US interest mostly at sea but also on ground attack. Brahmos is 50-50 with Russia, hence US is working hard to counter its spread If not militarily but thru flimsy laws unilaterally enacted by US themselves.

That is where US nervousness is clearly visible. It is not sabotaging Russian sale of weapons. It is sabotaging Indians effort to sell advanced weaponry. It has 70 to 80% Indian parts. Most of the technology is built in India.

it is a fit case to challenge in International Court of Justice to give an opinion or invalidate a US law outside of US.

 
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
2,056
Likes
11,130
Country flag
Do read..
======
"And some in India, in their dislike for the ruling dispensation, have actually gone so far as to advise Washington to challenge the Indian government on internal matters", says Harsh V Pant. A tendency unique to India among the major powers

This bakloli had approval ratings of 51% itself was a big joke.
And in 50 days his approval ratings have fallen to only 42% is a bigger joke.
And he being the president is the biggest joke.
kek.JPG


MODI ratings :


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And npcs like meena whining about us . Nice joke !
 
Last edited:

DerBronzeLord

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
610
Likes
2,233
Country flag
This bakloli had approval ratings of 51% itself was a big joke.
And in 50 days his approval ratings have fallen to only 42% is a bigger joke.
And he being the president is the biggest joke.
View attachment 80479

MODI ratings :


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And npcs like meena whining about us . Nice joke !
What is Modi's ratings right now? Unable to find any from the last month or so, all are from last year.
 

Lost user

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
676
Likes
2,643
Country flag
Do read..
======
"And some in India, in their dislike for the ruling dispensation, have actually gone so far as to advise Washington to challenge the Indian government on internal matters", says Harsh V Pant. A tendency unique to India among the major powers

Like the MPs who asked US to cancel Modi visa.. It is never highlighted that these Congi and Left wing scum were the ones who asked for it from the US..
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top