India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Feb 2016 06:37

ThiruV wrote:
Pakistan has no option but to dance to the tunes of US.
US has no leverage on Pakistan these days, as it has been eroding for the past few years -- it is a lot less than it used to be in the past few years. Pakistan rents itself out to who ever wants to rent it. Pakistan is taking US money and screwing the US quite nicely.

Actions speak louder than words. If US sanctions, invades or destabilizes Pakistan, then you can be sure that US is not happy with Pakistan. Infact, if US withholds giving money(directly or indirectly) to Pakistan for an year, then you can be sure that US is not happy with Pakistan. If US is giving money and weapons to Pakistan, then it means US is pleased with Pakistan's actions. Sometimes they might have to pretend they don't like what Pakistan is doing, but actions speak louder than words.

The only one getting screwed is India which will be the target of all the weapons which are gifted to Pakistan.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 06:39

Viv S wrote: The topic related to the US aid to Pakistan, not the stability of the Afghan govt. If you have questions/comments about the latter, take it to the Afghanistan thread.

The claim being made by you is that Afghanisthan's stability requires PAkistani assistance from the US, all of this downhill skiing under the guise of sticking to the topic does not take away from the fact that you have been spouting indefensible worthless rubbish to explain why the US needs to provide free weapons to pakistan that will be used against in India. All on topic really, and I have said what I wanted to say.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 06:39

Viv S wrote: The topic related to the US aid to Pakistan, not the stability of the Afghan govt. If you have questions/comments about the latter, take it to the Afghanistan thread.

The claim being made by you is that Afghanisthan's stability requires PAkistani assistance from the US, all of this downhill skiing under the guise of sticking to the topic does not take away from the fact that you have failed to explain why the US needs to provide free F-16s to pakistan that will be used against India, and how and why it will every succeed in stabilizing afghanisthan if it think pakistan is part of the solution. If Afghanisthan's stability is US's excuse to arm pakis, that does not compute. All on topic really, regardless of what you think.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 06:53

johneeG wrote:So, Indian Govt wants US to stay in Afghanistan while US needs to pay pakistan in cash and gifts(like F16) to stay in Afghanistan?

The F-16s aren't a gift. They're being bought via FMS. The quantum of FMF funding available to Pakistan remains unchanged at about $300 mil, though with the US Congress playing roadblock it remains to be seen how much of it they can utilize.

US has been invading(Iraq & Afghanistan), destabilizing(Syria & Ukraine) and sanctioning(Iran & NoKo) so many countries for so many reasons. Yet, when it comes to Pakistan(which is accused of sheltering Osama), they are absolutely helpless?!! And the only way they can get Pakistan to agree is by gifting them F16 which will be used against India?!

This isn't about morals, principles, good, bad whatever. The simple fact is Afghanistan is a land-locked country bordered by CIS states to the north, Iran to the west and China to the east and Pakistan to the south. And after the recent spat with Russia, even the Northern Distribution Network (costing three times more than the Karachi route) isn't a viable option.

In any event, the draw-down continues and the military aid seems to be tracking quite closely to the troop numbers.

US military strength in Afghanistan:

2011 - 100,000
2016 - 10,000

US military aid to Pakistan:

2011 - $3000 mil
2016 - $300 mil

By 2017 troop numbers are expected to be cut further down to 5,500 from the 9,800 today. Aid allotments will probably follow.

Pakistan doesn't have any functioning economy without US help directly or indirectly. US helps Pakistan because US wants Pakistan to stay alive. Pakistan has got no leverage on Superpower US. US has got all leverage on Pakistan. Pakistan has no option but to dance to the tunes of US.

China.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Feb 2016 07:02

Viv S,
I am talking realpolitik. If Pakistan had ever really threatened US stay in Afghanistan, then Pakistan would have faced the same actions which were executed on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Iran, NoKo, ...etc. There are hundreds of ways in which US can put pressure on Pak. If you really buy the line that US is forced to pay or gift anything to Pakistan because of compulsion, then you are just naive. If US wanted, they can divide Pakistan into 5 new countries and have their logistics secured. The amount of money that was gifted to Pakistan from 2001, they could have easily created new countries. Billions of dollars are being given. US with all their billions and weapons and intelligence agencies, don't have any leverage on Pakistan?! But, Pakistan which is a poor and powerless nation has a huge leverage on US?! Come on!

Oh, BTW, China never gave so much money to any country in its entire history as much money as US gives to Pakistan from 2001. Only US can give so much money because it literally prints money(dollars) unlike China.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 07:06

ThiruV wrote:The claim being made by you is that Afghanisthan's stability requires PAkistani assistance from the US, all of this downhill skiing under the guise of sticking to the topic does not take away from the fact that you have failed to explain why the US needs to provide free F-16s to pakistan that will be used against India, and how and why it will every succeed in stabilizing afghanisthan if it think pakistan is part of the solution. If Afghanisthan's stability is US's excuse to arm pakis, that does not compute. All on topic really, regardless of what you think.

Explained it twice and then you start complained about 'repeating myself' when I had to explain it a third time. Here I'll try a fourth time - as long as US troops remain deployed in Afghanistan, military aid to Pakistan will continue. Aid which it can choose to spend on F-16s (Congress willing).

That the US (and the Afghan council) want Pakistan to broker a deal between the Afghan govt and the Taliban is a separate issue.

habal · Post by **habal** » 14 Feb 2016 07:10

considering USA's real handiwork across the world i.e supporting Sunni terrorism wherever possible as compared to public posturing which is primarily for media consumption. USA's remaining presence in Afghanistan can be reasoned as follows.

Public posturing: (for media consumption)

1. To prevent growth of Taliban. To aid Afghan army.
2. To stabilize afghanistan. To help Afghan forces.

India's posturing:

1. Afghan army is highly inadequate to protect afghanistan.
2. USA should stay there till Afghan army is sufficiently capable.

So on surface USA is listening to Indian & Modi and staying put.

real reasons why USA is in afghanistan.

1. Afghanistan is link between China & Iran.
2. It is link between Central Asia & India. Occupation and destablization of Afghanistan can put spoke in the wheel of these plans. Hey what happens if China gets energy independent from shipping routes.
3. If India gets access to Central Asian energy and gets to trade with Afghanistan, then Afghanistan gets stable but that stability enhances Indian supremacy in region. So both are no go.
4. Facilitate drug trade in golden crescent. This helps culinary in generating funds for terrorist subversion and these funds are off the books. Many folks get to play their own small games in region with these kind of funding.
5. USA has conluded that if India or Russia or China intervenes in Afghanistan on behalf of govt of Afghan then they WILL stabilize the situation and dismantle the pakis. So unless the USA decide that India or Russia no longer have capability to stabilize Pakistan and the sh!t is beyond their control, USA will be in Afghanistan with their 5000 or so troops.

USA is the most effective sponsor of terror around the world. So it will do whatever is in interests of promoting Sunni terror but focused away from US and it's euro allies.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 07:20

johneeG wrote:Viv S,
I am talking realpolitik. If Pakistan had ever really threatened US stay in Afghanistan, then Pakistan would have faced the same actions which were executed on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Iran, NoKo, ...etc. There are hundreds of ways in which US can put pressure on Pak. If you really buy the line that US is forced to pay or gift anything to Pakistan because of compulsion, then you are just naive. If US wanted, they can divide Pakistan into 5 new countries and have their logistics secured. The amount of money that was gifted to Pakistan from 2001, they could have easily created new countries. Billions of dollars are being given. US with all their billions and weapons and intelligence agencies, don't have any leverage on Pakistan?! But, Pakistan which is a poor and powerless nation has a huge leverage on US?! Come on!

'Come on' indeed! The US is trying to pull out of Afghanistan ending fifteen bloody and mostly disappointing years of war coupled with chaos in the Middle East, and you expect them to be willing to start a massive new war in Pakistan? To achieve what aim? Save $300 million dollars? (To date, they've spent over $700 billion in the Afghan campaign.)

At this point, they probably want to get out with as little fuss as possible, without the whole house collapsing right behind them, so that they can go home and try to forget it like a bad dream (which will be much harder to do if it turns into another Iraq).

Oh, BTW, China never gave so much money to any country in its entire history as much money as US gives to Pakistan from 2001. Only US can give so much money because it literally prints money(dollars) unlike China.

Sure. And with the campaign winding up, I'd imagine they're looking forward to not give money to a duplicitous 'ally'. As of now China has committed $45 billion to the CPEC initiative, that Pakistan is banking upon to secure its economic future.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2016 07:27

There are hundreds of ways in which US can put pressure on Pak

Nope.

The US is really not any diff. The US *also* has babus. Some in favor of Pakistan and some against. That is realpolitics - common across the globe.

What India did by calling the US amby in is the way to go - the first step in that direction.

The US needs India in the SCS? Then India needs the US in Af-Pak region. Just that Russia has got into the picture.

But, we need to wait for a bit, Af-Pak will come under PACOM and *that* should help India a good bit. Of course Hillary may negate something like that. ?????

Bottom line is that these things are very fluid and therefore not easy to model and certainly never easy to explain.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Feb 2016 07:31

Viv S wrote:
johneeG wrote:Viv S,
I am talking realpolitik. If Pakistan had ever really threatened US stay in Afghanistan, then Pakistan would have faced the same actions which were executed on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Iran, NoKo, ...etc. There are hundreds of ways in which US can put pressure on Pak. If you really buy the line that US is forced to pay or gift anything to Pakistan because of compulsion, then you are just naive. If US wanted, they can divide Pakistan into 5 new countries and have their logistics secured. The amount of money that was gifted to Pakistan from 2001, they could have easily created new countries. Billions of dollars are being given. US with all their billions and weapons and intelligence agencies, don't have any leverage on Pakistan?! But, Pakistan which is a poor and powerless nation has a huge leverage on US?! Come on!
'Come on' indeed! The US is trying to pull out of Afghanistan ending fifteen bloody and mostly disappointing years of war coupled with chaos in the Middle East, and you expect them to be willing to start a massive new war in Pakistan? To achieve what aim? Save $300 million dollars? (To date, they've spent over $700 billion in the Afghan campaign.)

At this point, they probably want to get out with as little fuss as possible, without the whole house collapsing right behind them, so that they can go home and try to forget it like a bad dream (which will be much harder to do if it turns into another Iraq).

Oh, BTW, China never gave so much money to any country in its entire history as much money as US gives to Pakistan from 2001. Only US can give so much money because it literally prints money(dollars) unlike China.
It did. And with the campaign winding up, I'd imagine they're looking forward to not give money to a duplicitous 'ally'.

US should have invaded Pakistan instead of Afghanistan in the first place if it was really all about Osama. Atleast, there should have been sanctions. But, no such thing happened even when they themselves are saying that Osama was located in Pakistan. And then, they are giving them money and weapons. Other countries have been invaded and sanctioned for far less than this.

And if US was really tired of war, then they wouldn't be creating fires in Syria and Ukraine.

Anyway, I am not even talking about direct invasion of Pakistan. If US had diverted all these billions and weapons to some other entity(like say Balochistan Liberation Army), then Pakistan would have splintered and the logistics secured. So, US doesn't even have to invade Pakistan. They can just use the money and weapons to create rebels who can break Pakistan apart. We are talking of billions of dollars and weapons like F16.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Feb 2016 07:41

NRao wrote:
There are hundreds of ways in which US can put pressure on Pak
Nope.

The US is really not any diff. The US *also* has babus. Some in favor of Pakistan and some against. That is realpolitics - common across the globe.

What India did by calling the US amby in is the way to go - the first step in that direction.

The US needs India in the SCS? Then India needs the US in Af-Pak region. Just that Russia has got into the picture.

But, we need to wait for a bit, Af-Pak will come under PACOM and *that* should help India a good bit. Of course Hillary may negate something like that. ?????

Bottom line is that these things are very fluid and therefore not easy to model and certainly never easy to explain.

Well, US babus are not Indian babus. Indian system is more similar to British system.

The simple realpolitik is: Soviet was offset using China. China offsetted by Japan, India, Taiwan, Australia, ...etc. India offset by China & Pak. Pak is a powerless puppet, so NO need for any offset(other than India). Sunni offset by Shia and vice versa. Its the same old, divide and rule policy. Though, there has been more and more tilt towards Sunnis in the recent past. Iran deal comes at the right time to restore the balance.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 08:01

johneeG wrote:US should have invaded Pakistan instead of Afghanistan in the first place if it was really all about Osama. Atleast, there should have been sanctions. But, no such thing happened even when they themselves are saying that Osama was located in Pakistan. And then, they are giving them money and weapons. Other countries have been invaded and sanctioned for far less than this.

Could have, should have, if wishes were horses...

Pakistan was already under sanctions in 2001. And at that point, they had no incentive to invade Pakistan. (And had they tried it, it would have turned into a far far bigger quagmire than Iraq.)

And if US was really tired of war, then they wouldn't be creating fires in Syria and Ukraine.

One may equally argue that Ukraine would've been at peace today if Yanukovich had signed the association agreement with the EU, something that had the support of a significant majority of its public.

In any case, there is no US troop presence in Ukraine. And US operations in Iraq & Syria have resulted in lost zero combat casualties so far. Its no Afghanistan.

Anyway, I am not even talking about direct invasion of Pakistan. If US had diverted all these billions and weapons to some other entity(like say Balochistan Liberation Army), then Pakistan would have splintered and the logistics secured. So, US doesn't even have to invade Pakistan. They can just use the money and weapons to create rebels who can break Pakistan apart. We are talking of billions of dollars and weapons like F16.

That's wishful thinking. The US didn't enter the region to take down Pakistan, or even the Taliban for that matter. The target was always the Al Qaeda, at least to begin with.

Besides which a nuclear power in a state of civil war is something they'd want to avoid as a principle (India's position isn't very different truth be told). Honestly.. you're just wishing that the US had done what India did not or could not. Unfortunately, fact is, this is our neighbourhood not theirs; the US has no real geopolitical interest in Afghanistan (anymore than they have in say.. Mongolia).

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 08:06

Here I'll try a fourth time - as long as US troops remain deployed in Afghanistan, military aid to Pakistan will continue.

Yes, but that was not the question, genius, but don't let that stop you from repeating the only answer you seem to have for every question. Anyway, moving on.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 08:09

johneeG wrote:The simple realpolitik is: Soviet was offset using China. China offsetted by Japan, India, Taiwan, Australia, ...etc. India offset by China & Pak. Pak is a powerless puppet, so NO need for any offset(other than India). Sunni offset by Shia and vice versa. Its the same old, divide and rule policy. Though, there has been more and more tilt towards Sunnis in the recent past. Iran deal comes at the right time to restore the balance.

The Soviets were a major ideological and military threat. China is a major economic and military rival. India is neither and won't be for at least another two decades, by which time the US would have been eclipsed by China. India isn't perceived as even a long term threat by the US mainstream strategic thought (BRF of course is a different matter).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 08:14

ThiruV wrote:Anyway, moving on.

You say that... but seem to having real trouble doing it.

ThiruV - Post 1 wrote:Anyway, I am done with this conversation -- best thing to do when continuing this conversation is just a waste of time for all sides. Have a nice day.

ThiruV - Post 2 wrote:It is boring. over and out.

ThiruV - Post 3 wrote:All on topic really, and I have said what I wanted to say.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 08:16

When you come up with retarded horsesh!t, can't let it slide. My fault, but hey, nobody's perfect. I will move on when I feel like it. No promises.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 08:18

ThiruV wrote:When you come with retarded horsesh!t, can't let it slide. My fault, but hey, nobody's perfect.

ThiruV wrote:Anyway, moving on.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Feb 2016 08:24

Viv S wrote:
johneeG wrote:US should have invaded Pakistan instead of Afghanistan in the first place if it was really all about Osama. Atleast, there should have been sanctions. But, no such thing happened even when they themselves are saying that Osama was located in Pakistan. And then, they are giving them money and weapons. Other countries have been invaded and sanctioned for far less than this.
Could have, should have, if wishes were horses...

Pakistan was already under sanctions in 2001. And at that point, they had no incentive to invade Pakistan. (And had they tried it, it would have turned into a far far bigger quagmire than Iraq.)

And if US was really tired of war, then they wouldn't be creating fires in Syria and Ukraine.
One may equally argue that Ukraine would've been at peace today if Yanukovich had signed the association agreement with the EU, something that had the support of a significant majority of its public.

In any case, there is no US troop presence in Ukraine. And US operations in Iraq & Syria have resulted in lost zero combat casualties so far. Its no Afghanistan.

Anyway, I am not even talking about direct invasion of Pakistan. If US had diverted all these billions and weapons to some other entity(like say Balochistan Liberation Army), then Pakistan would have splintered and the logistics secured. So, US doesn't even have to invade Pakistan. They can just use the money and weapons to create rebels who can break Pakistan apart. We are talking of billions of dollars and weapons like F16.
That's wishful thinking. The US didn't enter the region to take down Pakistan, or even the Taliban for that matter. The target was always the Al Qaeda, at least to begin with.

Besides which a nuclear power in a state of civil war is something they'd want to avoid as a principle (India's position isn't very different truth be told). Honestly.. you're just wishing that the US had done what India did not or could not. Unfortunately, fact is, this is our neighbourhood not theirs; the US has no real geopolitical interest in Afghanistan (anymore than they have in say.. Mongolia).

So, US invaded Afghanistan only because of Al Qaida. Al Qaida chief Osama was sheltered by Pakistan. And US gives money and weapons to Pakistan. If you don't see contradictions in this story, then I have a Taj Mahal to sell to you.

Why didn't US give all these billions and weapons to Taliban itself in return for Osama and Al Qaida? I am sure Taliban would have happily given up anybody for that kind of price.

And whats wishful about arming the rebels? Its a pretty common tactic around the world. Look at the rebels in Syria supported by US. Look at the rebels in Ukraine supported by Russia. Its not even secretive. The same can be easily done in Pakistan(or any other country) if US wanted.

Infact, supporting the rebels has been the popular tactic recently. Egyptian revolt, Libyan rebels, ...etc. Troops on ground are the final step. Propping up rebels is an option which gives plausible deniability. Every country will have a few disgruntled elements. Powerful countries can use these disgruntled elements to wage a rebellion by giving them money, weapons, media coverage and global validity. Similarly, every country has external enemies(particularly in neighbourhood). By arming one neighbour against another, it keeps all of them divided and down.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Feb 2016 08:30

Viv S,
If you are playing chess, you don't react to just immediate threats. You anticipate threats and opportunities and make moves. A better player anticipates more moves. Amirkhan is a superpower with a huge number of thinktanks. What do you think those thinktanks are doing? Their job is to anticipate the opportunities and threats around the world in the foreseeable future and come up with ideas to deal with them.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 08:32

Summarily, US's decision to continue funding pakistan, this is not going to be the last time by a long shot. Pakis will continue to get a few hundred million annually in the coming years too, assuming they do not do something to deny themselves that rent money.

US will not be removing any boots on the ground from the ground, because Afghanisthan is not about to stabilize any time soon, given the central role Pakistan's been given. There will be a US "presence" for longer than is being claimed now -- the claims being made for US presence in public are bogus since there is logical inconsistency between stated goals in afghanisthan and their actions on the ground that go against these goals, which require a longer-term presence in afghanisthan.

For example, stabilizing afghanisthan with pakistan's support is a contradiction in terms, that can only be explained if the actual goal is to keep Afghanisthan destabilized in order to ensure a continued presence in the region. Nothing new being stated here anyway, but probably worth repeating.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 08:40

johneeG wrote:So, US invaded Afghanistan only because of Al Qaida. Al Qaida chief Osama was sheltered by Pakistan. And US gives money and weapons to Pakistan. If you don't see contradictions in this story, then I have a Taj Mahal to sell to you.

Everyone sees the irony today, including those in the US. But back in 2001, nobody would have guessed that UBL would eventually be found in Abbottabad (nobody outside India that is). And even after discovering that and other duplicities, they really don't have many viable options.

Why didn't US give all these billions and weapons to Taliban itself in return for Osama and Al Qaida? I am sure Taliban would have happily given up anybody for that kind of price.

It wouldn't have. Not that giving billions and weapons to an entity like the Taliban (recognized only by the Pakistan, UAE & Saudi Arabia) was ever feasible.

And whats wishful about arming the rebels? Its a pretty common tactic around the world. Look at the rebels in Syria supported by US. Look at the rebels in Ukraine supported by Russia. Its not even secretive. The same can be easily done in Pakistan(or any other country) if US wanted.

Infact, supporting the rebels has been the popular tactic recently. Egyptian revolt, Libyan rebels, ...etc. Troops on ground are the final step. Propping up rebels is an option which gives plausible deniability. Every country will have a few disgruntled elements. Powerful countries can use these disgruntled elements to wage a rebellion by giving them money, weapons, media coverage and global validity. Similarly, every country has external enemies(particularly in neighbourhood). By arming one neighbour against another, it keeps all of them divided and down.

Fund the Baloch militancy and if all went well, a decade or two later the US would have its land channel to Afghanistan...?

Except that the US didn't want to overthrow the Pakistani govt at the time. Nor does it want to do so today, for that matter (a view shared by the Indian govt). Because whatever the situation that exists currently may still be a lot better than the alternative. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. A lesson the US learned the hard way after overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2016 08:44

Well, US babus are not Indian babus. Indian system is more similar to British system.

Systems change/diff, babus remain the same.

It is an universal caste.

Ex-pm are honorary babus. MMS.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 08:46

johneeG wrote:Viv S,
If you are playing chess, you don't react to just immediate threats. You anticipate threats and opportunities and make moves. A better player anticipates more moves. Amirkhan is a superpower with a huge number of thinktanks. What do you think those thinktanks are doing? Their job is to anticipate the opportunities and threats around the world in the foreseeable future and come up with ideas to deal with them.

How many, if any, US think-tanks have identified India as a likely future threat to the US or its strategic interests? I've only heard it here on BRF.

habal · Post by **habal** » 14 Feb 2016 08:48

ultimately it is North Korea that will be on USA's case.

North Korea is that spartan country of Asia which is being preserved for only one objective. To finish USA.
When USA nukes North Korea back. No one loses and no one cries because North Koreans do not have anything worth preserving and do not claim to have anything either. btw has anybody seen a North Korean cry ?
they are kept devoid of emotions, and their only emotions are towards their leader.
they do not make anything and their landscape is similar to one that is already nuked.

they are not into soft living.
they have only one objective in mind.
this kind of place scares the frig out of countries like USA.
this is what happens when you push a people so far out that hatred gets entrenched in their genetic memory.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 08:53

I... really can't tell if you're being serious.

habal · Post by **habal** » 14 Feb 2016 08:55

so you can see my post's .. good.

btw North Korea is China's proxy. For India to have leverage, we must have our own proxy otherwise we remain a joke as we are now.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Feb 2016 08:59

Viv S wrote:
johneeG wrote:So, US invaded Afghanistan only because of Al Qaida. Al Qaida chief Osama was sheltered by Pakistan. And US gives money and weapons to Pakistan. If you don't see contradictions in this story, then I have a Taj Mahal to sell to you.
Everyone sees the irony today, including those in the US. But back in 2001, nobody would have guessed that UBL would eventually be found in Abbottabad (nobody outside India that is). And even after discovering that and other duplicities, they really don't have many viable options.

Why didn't US give all these billions and weapons to Taliban itself in return for Osama and Al Qaida? I am sure Taliban would have happily given up anybody for that kind of price.
It wouldn't have. Not that giving billions and weapons to an entity like the Taliban (recognized only by the Pakistan, UAE & Saudi Arabia) was a ever feasible.

And whats wishful about arming the rebels? Its a pretty common tactic around the world. Look at the rebels in Syria supported by US. Look at the rebels in Ukraine supported by Russia. Its not even secretive. The same can be easily done in Pakistan(or any other country) if US wanted.

Infact, supporting the rebels has been the popular tactic recently. Egyptian revolt, Libyan rebels, ...etc. Troops on ground are the final step. Propping up rebels is an option which gives plausible deniability. Every country will have a few disgruntled elements. Powerful countries can use these disgruntled elements to wage a rebellion by giving them money, weapons, media coverage and global validity. Similarly, every country has external enemies(particularly in neighbourhood). By arming one neighbour against another, it keeps all of them divided and down.
Fund the Baloch militancy and if all went well, a decade or two later the US would have its land channel to Afghanistan..

Except that the US didn't want to overthrow the Pakistani govt at the time. Nor does it want to do so today, for that matter (a view shared by the Indian govt). Because whatever the situation that exists currently may still be a lot better than the alternative. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. A lesson the US learned the hard way after overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

- There was no punishment on Pakistan EVEN AFTER Osama was found in Pakistan. On the contrary, more money and weapons have been given to Pakistan.

- China was not recognized by US for a long time. Modi was not given Visa by US for a long time. Such things can change in a jiffy. If US wanted, they could have easily recognized Taliban and made a deal with them. Infact, they are now negotiating with Taliban isn't it via Pakistan? The whole concept of good Taliban and bad Taliban. If negotiating with Taliban is such a bad idea, why are they doing it now? This whole story is riddled with contradictions. And contradictions keep increasing with the time.

- Ok, let me outline a scenario: US sanctions Pakistan. Stops all direct and indirect funds and weapons to Pakistan from US and its allies. Then, it gives funds and weapons to rebels in Pakistan like Balochistan Liberation Army in Balochistan, and some groups in Pakhtun lands, some groups in Karachi, ...etc. The first step would be to take the controls of ports in Karachi and Gwadar, Balochistan. That itself would send Pakistan into Paralysis. Do you think its going to take a decade for Pakistan to unravel? How long did it take in Ukraine for rebels to capture power with the support of US? I would say that Pakistan would splinter within an year at most if US wanted.

- So, the only option left is: US gives weapons and money to Pakistan because it wants Pakistan to survive and stay strong. Pakistan has stated again and again that it threatens only and only India. Infact, it is ready to even use Nukes on India. Surely, US understands this.

- Forget Indian govt views. US doesn't act according to the views of Indian govt. India has no leverage on US. India cannot force US to do anything except by agreeing to toe its line. Perhaps, the sole leverage that India has is: ability to hurt Pakistan.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2016 09:31

Whom could President Obama nominate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia?

#1 on the short list:

Any list begins with Sri Srinivasan, 48, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- a traditional launching pad for Supreme Court nominees.

Obama first nominated him to the post in 2012, and the Senate confirmed him, 97-0, in May 2013, including votes in support from GOP presidential contenders Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Srinivasan, an Indian-American, was a high school basketball star in Kansas before attending Stanford University, which he graduated from in 1989.

He was Obama's principal deputy solicitor general, most notably working on the successful fight against the Defense of Marriage Act.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 14 Feb 2016 11:03

Hand placed on Gita during oath ceremony.

http://im.rediff.com/news/2013/sep/27sri2.jpg

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 14 Feb 2016 14:32

RoyG wrote:Hand placed on Gita during oath ceremony.

What does that mean actually?

Does that mean he swears allegiance to india or the US?
-------------------

Whether a person has indian origins, reads gita or speaks some familiar languages doesn't mean positive outcomes for indian interests.

The recent installments of indian origin individuals appointed in foreign states facing against india has to do with this: - In the video, watch closely what they are trying to achieve:

Unko ek "ghar bhedi" type diplomatic setup chahiye so that they can upgrade from a "mehmaan" type interaction to a complete "parivaar" type gupshup interation

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Feb 2016 17:46

Sri Srinivasan was approved to Washington D.C. District Judge in 2013 by the US Senate in a 97-0 vote. ALL Republicans voted for him including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. The idea of using Sri Srinivasan is to bait the Republicans to make nasty statements about Srinivasan's Indian origin and Hindu faith in an election year. Someone like Trump may not hide his racism. This is why Republican leadership wants the supreme court nominee to come after the presidential election and new president in 2017.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Feb 2016 17:49

Dangerous groups operating within Pakistan: US envoy Richard Verma -- ToI

Dangerous groups have been operating for several decades, almost since Pakistan's independence. The US has directly or indirectly helped some of them as well. Be that as it may, the following narrative by the US ambassador on the latest F-16 sale is interesting

" (The latest decision on F-16 aircraft) is part of a legacy announcement"

Like China grandfathering those four Pakistani nuclear reactors, Mr. Ambassador?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 14 Feb 2016 20:12

CRamS wrote:
Amber G. wrote:
Even MUCH MUCH worse is this pathetic (but too often in brf) whining and blaming NYT, US, and DDM for one's own ignorance and ad absurdum complaining..

Don't blame others
AmbeJi, thx for all the information, and I appreciate it. But why would you consider it pathetic if DDM was making such a big deal about Indian involvement, PM ModiJi lauded the Indian role, and yet I couldn't find a single news report in US that corroborated that <snip>.

CRamS - First, thanks for a message which remained civil and not off-topic.

I call it pathetic because:

1. From what I know - The press conference everyone in US in talking about was coordinated LIVE in Pune's IUCAA (Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics) ; so why keep complaining about NYT/US/DDM etc..

2. Why not listen to, say, just give one example, C V Vishweshwara at the press conference held at SPPU campus ( Savitribai Phule Pune University ) whose quotes I have seen in an indian newspaper.

3. Why not listen to tweets or other communications from, say NaMo (PM of India) who congratulated the scientific community, saying India would look to hosting a LIGO lab now (How does it matter, even if US media did not cover it to your satisfaction)

4. If you wanted to know more about Inida's role and be assured that India (or US's) claim is "really a big deal", You might have checked out -- even better than AmberG's posts in brf

-- Ajith Parmeshwaran (an Indian scientist) who said "All this while, we have also made sure that this distortion is not due to any other aspect but gravitational waves. Indian scientists contributed immensely, be it regarding data analysis or other aspects.".

Finally when all said and done - forget about DDM or even Pakistan for a while, to keep the things in perspective ..

This detection is the beginning of a new era. The field of gravitational wave astronomy is now a reality.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Feb 2016 23:18

NRao wrote:Whom could President Obama nominate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia?

#1 on the short list:Any list begins with Sri Srinivasan, 48, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- a traditional launching pad for Supreme Court nominees.Obama first nominated him to the post in 2012, and the Senate confirmed him, 97-0, in May 2013, including votes in support from GOP presidential contenders Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.Srinivasan, an Indian-American, was a high school basketball star in Kansas before attending Stanford University, which he graduated from in 1989.He was Obama's principal deputy solicitor general, most notably working on the successful fight against the Defense of Marriage Act.

[/quote]

His name was circulated last time when Sotomayor was nominated .

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 15 Feb 2016 00:10

AmberJi, Thx. I have deep interest in Astrophysics in a philosophical sense, my dad is a retd prof of radio astronomy, and after my B-tech, I briefly interned and worked with my man Professor Rajaram Nityananda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajaram_Nityananda). My skepticism arose from an experience I narrated where it was claimed that NASA had detected "Om" sound in solar flares. The Indian involvement in the Gravitational wave discovery is indeed deep which I was ignorant of. I need follow your posts more closely

.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 15 Feb 2016 01:06

- Ok, let me outline a scenario: US sanctions Pakistan. Stops all direct and indirect funds and weapons to Pakistan from US and its allies. Then, it gives funds and weapons to rebels in Pakistan like Balochistan Liberation Army in Balochistan, and some groups in Pakhtun lands, some groups in Karachi, ...etc. The first step would be to take the controls of ports in Karachi and Gwadar, Balochistan. That itself would send Pakistan into Paralysis. Do you think its going to take a decade for Pakistan to unravel? How long did it take in Ukraine for rebels to capture power with the support of US? I would say that Pakistan would splinter within an year at most if US wanted.

Good strategy, if at all USA wants to do anything to punish Pakistan. In fact, what is not known about Pakistan - WMDs, wars, genocides, cross border terrorism, denial of minority rights, hiding generations of terrorists from across the globe including Osama bin Laden, printing fake currency, supporting insurgencies, ethnic cleansing, lawlessness .. one can go on and on.

viewtopic.php?p=1979014#p1979014
The link says that Syria did not want to "harm ties" with Turkey by pushing issue of Hatay region. Wonder who sold such an idea to Syria, instead of naming and shaming Turkey openly, may be Syria did not want to antagonize NATO alongwith rogue Turkey. See now what Turkey has done with cross border terrorism, and openly shelling and threatening to invade.

Point here is, USA played for its national interest while Syria could not encounter cross border threat.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 15 Feb 2016 03:43

[quote="NRao"]Whom could President Obama nominate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia?

Whoever he nominates, should be fun to watch if the Canadian wins the election and is sued by one of the Americans while the court is evenly split.

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 Feb 2016 07:00

X Posted.

SSridhar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:Dangerous groups operating within Pakistan: US envoy Richard Verma
This is a customary statement to please Indian ears while arms to attack India with are freely flowing to Pakistan.

You are right and I hope that our Government is fully aware of this.

Meanwhile the US is playing the game of the having an Undeclared Good State Sponsor of Terrorism and a Declared Bad State Sponsor of Terrorism .

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 Feb 2016 07:03

SSridhar wrote:Dangerous groups operating within Pakistan: US envoy Richard Verma -- ToI

Dangerous groups have been operating for several decades, almost since Pakistan's independence. The US has directly or indirectly helped some of them as well. Be that as it may, the following narrative by the US ambassador on the latest F-16 sale is interesting
" (The latest decision on F-16 aircraft) is part of a legacy announcement"
Like China grandfathering those four Pakistani nuclear reactors, Mr. Ambassador?

Astute observation. The "Legacy" comment regards supply of F-16's by the US to the Undeclared Good State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, smacks of that.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Feb 2016 07:27

F-16, Pervez Musharraf pour cold water on India-Pakistan talks - ToI

Even as India and Pakistan continue to be "in touch", the prospect of an early start to the comprehensive bilateral dialogue (CBD) in the form of a meeting between the foreign secretaries now looks increasingly bleak.

A spate of events has ensured this, not least the announcement by the US that it was going ahead with sale of F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan. Islamabad on Sunday said it was surprised and disappointed with India's reaction which saw New Delhi summoning US envoy Richard Verma to register protest against the sale.

Pakistan said India's Army and arsenal were much larger and it was also the largest importer of defence equipment. Even after India's protest, the US justified its decision with a state department official saying F-16 aircraft were "critical" to the success of Pakistan's counter-terror operations.

Indian officials believe the development will let Islamabad off the hook at a time when the government was using the Pathankot attack to force Pakistan to act against terror groups whose main target is India. In its reaction, Pakistan also pointed to how it closely cooperates with the US in countering terrorism.

The announcement of F-16 sale to Pakistan comes close on the heels of a series of developments which have forced India to renege on its earlier announcement that the foreign secretary talks would be held in the "very near future".

I am delighted with this formulation by GoI. The US, on the one hand, compels India to engage Pakistan in peace talks even after terror attacks and zilch action by Pakistan against India-directed terrorism and on the other hand supplies that aggressor, terrorist state also with offensive weapons that are meant to be used against India and which will be used against India by that country as history shows. Pinch the child & rock the cradle. Let us hold the US also responsible for non-resumption of talks.

It may be tough, but we must also hold the US responsible for breakdown of talks. No opportunity must be lost in that.