Indo-US Relations

How is obama in regards to indian policies?

  • good

    Votes: 15 11.6%
  • bad

    Votes: 60 46.5%
  • need more time

    Votes: 54 41.9%

  • Total voters
    129
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,791
Country flag
Unfortunately, this time, Obama came out and said that Pakistan as a nation needed their help... LOL!!! That's what scared me the most... They somehow have to ensure Pakistani support for the WOT now that it is in such a crucial stage... and I'm sure that Obama will not think twice before throwing money at Pakistan to try and get their support...
nothing much will happen when one debtor nation tries to help another debtor nation.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
107
He doesn't have a Choice. The USA is depending on China to fund its massive spending, and continue to keep the dollar afloat by buying US Currency.

China has already made noises about ditching the dollar in favour of a new global currency, and Russia just backed the idea. If that happens, the US will drop like a stone, literally.

Why do you think Hillary is shuttling between Beijing and Washington?
I guess even China doesn't have much choice in this matter. They need to keep pumping in the money to secure what has already been pumped and also to keep on exporting in the ridiculous amounts.

GWB had an ideological bent of mind and he considered India to be on the side of the good. Obama may not carry forward the same policies if they are perceived as costing America.
 

EnlightenedMonk

Member of The Month JULY 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
3,831
Likes
25
Its not freebies - its bribery to give up their sovereignty. IMO from the point of view of a nation state, its independence is priceless. You cannot and should not let anyone - even your ally - bomb your territory.

I'm sure China would be willing to pay a far greater amount to let them bomb Dharamsala. Will we let them?
Come on yaar ??? How can you even compare the situations ??? China is not US and Pakistan is not India...

He supported those people from the start and now he doesn't even want to do a cleanup job... he still gets paid to sit quietly and watch... that's a neat way to make a profit...

I wouldn't be surprised that this funda of "good taliban" has come up and now the US will let the Good Taliban scot free and Pakistan will gain by funneling them across the border into India to cause trouble here...

Anyway I look at it, it seems the net gainer is Pakistan...
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,791
Country flag
China is going to be stuck holding worthless junk in the form of US treasury notes and US bonds and devalued US dollar, what USA is doing is getting goods from China and giving them debt a bad formula, China may wake up to discover they are not rich with all the worthless US debt they have and are forced to buy if they want trade with USA ,By the way there is no market for US debt nobody else in their right mind wants to buy it.
 

EnlightenedMonk

Member of The Month JULY 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
3,831
Likes
25
True, but all that will take sometime to happen... not immediately... and, to offset the balance China is asking for another global currency...

For all future exports to the US, he may ask for the full payment in that currency, or for a percentage of payment in that currency... and, add to this the fact that Chinese currency is not free float... so, essentially, he can fix any price he pleases for the Yuan and then use it to possibly blackmail and armtwist...
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
155
Come on yaar ??? How can you even compare the situations ??? China is not US and Pakistan is not India...
Why not? The Taliban is to the USA, what the Dalai Lama is to China (Whether that is justified or not is a different debate).

India's policy is to support Dalai Lama. India could, if she wanted to, choose to sacrifice the Lama to gain Chinese support in the same way that Pakistan is sacrificing its ally Taliban (albeit reluctantly) to keep the US happy and the funds flowing.
You could of course argue that Pakistan could not realistically refuse the US without turning its ally into an enemy.

He supported those people from the start and now he doesn't even want to do a cleanup job... he still gets paid to sit quietly and watch... that's a neat way to make a profit...
Look at its this way - the current instability in Pakistan - the TTP and other groups running amok - are partly a result of Pakistan's support of the USA's policies in both Afg. and Pak.

Before the USA started bombing Afghanistan and Tribal Areas, these jehadi groups were a benign tumour whose actions were focussed outside their country.

So in a way, Pakistan is giving up its own stability in the bargain, and fighting an undeclared civil war that is only going to get worse as time progresses.


I wouldn't be surprised that this funda of "good taliban" has come up and now the US will let the Good Taliban scot free and Pakistan will gain by funneling them across the border into India to cause trouble here...

Anyway I look at it, it seems the net gainer is Pakistan...
Well the 'good taliban' debate is yet another long one, but I fail to see what Pakistan is gaining from this.

Yes, in one way it is gaining because if it succeeds in rooting out the jehadis we will have some real peace and stability in the region.

But in the short term, it is sacrificing both its sovereignty and stabililty to keep its ally happy.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,791
Country flag
this Good Taliban is an exit strategy for USA/NATO when they lose in Afghanistan they can say now the good Taliban have taken over we have achieved our goal, and still look like a they had a victory, it is all smoke and mirrors like the whole war on terror no one even talks about Osama Bin laden anymore the primary objective of the war.
 

EnlightenedMonk

Member of The Month JULY 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
3,831
Likes
25
Flintlock, this good taliban sham is a way for them to save face and get out while they still can... the situation in Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse because of the instability in Pakistan.

For now, it may look as if Pakistan is paying a heavy price, but when NATO gets out, he will funnel the jihadis back into Afghanistan and Kashmir and we'll be back to square one...

Except for that Pakistan will be about 35 billion dollars richer than he ought to have been...
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,791
Country flag
there is always the possiblity of Pakistan breaking apart in NWFP and Baluchistan, when Pashtuns win like they have with Pakistan surrendering why would they still want to be a part of the loser that surrendered to them?
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
155
IMO it would have happened if it were not for the Pakistani Army. That's the only force keeping Pakistan together as of now.

What I've realized, is that the Pashtuns are a 'nation', on both sides of the Durand line. The border is irrelevant to them, and the only way Pakistan was able to keep those areas nominally part of their country is by continuing to use the old British policies of letting them rule themselves and using collective punishment if they tried to assert their independence.

But we are digressing from the topic.

there is always the possiblity of Pakistan breaking apart in NWFP and Baluchistan, when Pashtuns win like they have with Pakistan surrendering why would they still want to be a part of the loser that surrendered to them?
 

EnlightenedMonk

Member of The Month JULY 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
3,831
Likes
25
Yep, back to the topic guys.... we'll save this for some other thread...
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,791
Country flag
IMO it would have happened if it were not for the Pakistani Army. That's the only force keeping Pakistan together as of now.

What I've realized, is that the Pashtuns are a 'nation', on both sides of the Durand line. The border is irrelevant to them, and the only way Pakistan was able to keep those areas nominally part of their country is by continuing to use the old British policies of letting them rule themselves and using collective punishment if they tried to assert their independence.

But we are digressing from the topic.

How about the emotional revenge factor many Pashtuns want revenge for being slaughtered at the hands of pakistan, Pakistan did use then to fight a proxy war in Kashmir than turn around with USA and stab them in the back,I they created the taliban and then went to war against it.I think this will also play a major factor in the future of how well pakistan stays together, and with their surrender it may not be so bright when USA is not holding their hand?
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
155
How about the emotional revenge factor many Pashtuns want revenge for being slaughtered at the hands of pakistan, Pakistan did use then to fight a proxy war in Kashmir than turn around with USA and stab them in the back,I they created the taliban and then went to war against it.I think this will also play a major factor in the future of how well pakistan stays together, and with their surrender it may not be so bright when USA is not holding their hand?
It could happen.
 

pyromaniac

Founding Member
Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
535
Likes
14
How about the emotional revenge factor many Pashtuns want revenge for being slaughtered at the hands of pakistan, Pakistan did use then to fight a proxy war in Kashmir than turn around with USA and stab them in the back,I they created the taliban and then went to war against it.I think this will also play a major factor in the future of how well pakistan stays together, and with their surrender it may not be so bright when USA is not holding their hand?
Its funny you say that, because Pakistani troops murdered hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi Civilians and for a time there, those people were very anti pakistan. However, fast forward to now and they view India as the enemy. Religion does some very strange things....
 

Skippy

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
60
Likes
6
Obama is not interested in anything outside how he can gain power, with his love of Iran will be the downfall of many countries.
 

Su-47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
282
Likes
39
I used to support Obama. I thought his policy of USA withdrawing from Iraq and talking with Iran had its merits, but so far he is shooting blanks. I hate the fact that he is going down the tried, tested and failed route of supporting pakistan with aid, when that aid is what funds the bloody taliban in the first place.

Whatever anyone says about Bush, he did brilliantly on the Indo-US relationship. The nuckear deal won over the hearts of many indians. If Obama doesn't do more to keep that relationship going, it will be a lose-lose situation for both USA and India. USA will lose a potential powerful ally in Asia (a real ally, pak with its two-timing doesnt count), and India will lose access to US tech.

Obama should realise that pursuing better relations with India should be a key US priority, especially since India is forecast to be a future superpower.
 

youngindian

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,362
Likes
73
Indian envoy questions US stance on Indo-Iran ties

Indian envoy questions US stance on Indo-Iran ties: Rediff.com news


June 30, 2009 09:11 IST

Meera Shankar, India's envoy to the United States, on Monday said there are 'double standards' in the US about the issue of India's ties with Iran.

Shankar said that while it is true that India has relations with Teheran, there are American companies as well who have ties with some sectors in that country, through their local subsidiaries.

Although she did not spell it out, Shankar's comment indirectly pointed out that those American companies' ties with Iran did not come under Washington's scanner.

"But singling out one country (like India) is not good. We also see that Pakistan and Iran have signed an agreement on a gas pipeline, but that does not figure as a condition for (American) aid to Pakistan,' she said while alluding to the US Senate's approval of tripling of the country's aid to Pakistan last week.

"So, there are double standards operating here," Shankar said in response to a question about India's ties with Iran and its possible impact on Indo-US relationship.

She was delivering special remarks at a conference on 'US-Indian relations in the Obama [Images] era', organised by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC.

Among those who addressed the morning conference included Robert Blake, assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia affairs, besides two panel of speakers including George Perkovich, director of the nonproliferation programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington as well as Arvind Panagariya, Jagdish Bhagwati professor of Indian political economy at Columbia.

Danielle Pletka, who has served for ten years as a senior professional staff member for the Near East and South Asia on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations before joining the AEI, posed a question about US aid to Islamabad [Images] to Shankar. She responded by stating that New Delhi [Images] shared the concerns of the US about stabilising Pakistan and Afghanistan and moving them towards the direction of stability and moderation.

So that the achievement of this objective can be best pursued, said Shankar, New Delhi supports the flow of assistance to Pakistan, particularly economic assistance, which is essential at this stage given the very precarious state of Pakistan's economy, but not so much the military assistance.

"As far as security assistance is concerned, we feel it should be focused specifically on building counter-terrorism capabilities rather than making provisions for conventional defence equipment," she said.

"And, of course we think that the pursuance of the objective that we share will certainly be easier, if there are benchmarks to ensure that the assistance is linked to deliverables on the ground and that there is both transparency and accountability in the process," Shankar added.

Asked if China was getting priority over India under the new US administration, Shankar said India does not compare its relationship with the US in terms of Washington's relationship with other countries.

"We hope that the US would give priority to India on its own merits. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [Images] is due to visit India in July and we hope that visit would provide the basis for a roadmap to take the India-US relationship to the next level," she said.

Shankar also fielded questions from the audience on terrorism from across the border with Pakistan and why the composite dialogue with Islamabad failed to take off. She said that even after the terrorist attack on Mumbai [Images] in November last year, launched by terrorist outfits from Pakistan, and the earlier attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, in which there was direct involvement of elements from Pakistan's security agencies, New Delhi took a restrained view and continued dialogue.

She pointed out that even though the public opinion in India was against restraint, "we still did not take any retaliatory measures. Not even after the Mumbai attack. We have stressed that the perpetrators of terrorism have been brought to book and there are tangible signs of that," she said.

"I think it is important that there is some honesty and sincerity because in the absence of those, it would be extremely difficult to have a constructive dialogue. Terrorism [Images] and dialogue cannot go hand in hand. We would like to see honesty and sincerity from Pakistan on this issue," Shankar said.
 

venkat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
907
Likes
201
Atlast some one like Meera shankar ji has exhibited the guts to expose american duplicity while dealing with Iran. India shared excellent relations with IRAN ,till USA stepped in. we should turn a deaf ear to USA and work with Iran in our economic interests
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,789
The Ambassador has only articulated an universal truth.

The US protects its interests and protests when others do the same!

Her relations with Pakistan, China, Afghanistan, India etc are all serving US interests and not the interest of the countries they are interacting with.

Pakistan, historically, has always been kicked once they have served the US interests. The Mujh and their successor Talibans is one such example.

India has been given the sop of the nuclear deal and Manmohan has painted the town red over it. The US is now tweaking the same to suit their purpose!!

That done to appease India, the US is bankrolling Pakistan and its Army, with scant regard to Indian sensitivity of endangering the subcontinent and starting an arms race! The arms race serves the US interest.

China is the challenger to the US. Yet, money pours in and China is allowed to steal US technology including military ones!

Bush was straight, Obama is a clever and a sly one! And to believe that I thought he was going to change the world.

Ask Israel!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads




Global Defence

Articles

Top