Pres. Obama's visit.

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby ramana » 12 Nov 2010 20:30

Ramtanu Misra in Newsinsoght.net

US's Pak conundrum
Barack Obama was neither forthright nor honest during his India visit, says Ramtanu Maitra.

Washington, 12 November 2010: On 7 November, the visiting US president, Barack Obama, encountered a sharp question at Bombay's St Xavier's College, where a management student, Afsheen Irani, asked him: "Why is Pakistan such an important ally of the United States? Why hasn't America called it a terrorist state?" Although Obama was coached how to answer such a question, he was a bit rattled. Nonetheless, he came back saying he was expecting such a question.

There was no doubt that he was expecting such a question and he also remembered how to obfuscate it. He said: "Pakistan is an enormous country with an enormous potential, but it also has extremist elements within it just like any other country." It was rather a clumsy way to hide the facts, and it was evident that it did not satisfy the student. She said so when she made clear that she never got the reply she was waiting for. "I was looking for an answer and I did not get it. I was not satisfied with what he said. He was very diplomatic."

Kick India out, says Pollock

On the same day, The Washington Post carried a wordy op-ed by David Pollock, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a senior State Department adviser for the broader Middle East from 2002 to 2007. The op-ed, "Our Indian problem in Afghanistan," stated in no uncertain terms that "President Obama's trip to India offers a crucial, and counterintuitive, opportunity missing in all the talk about Afghanistan: how to accommodate Pakistan's interests in that country." Pollock said: "Unless we find a way to do that, Pakistan will not stop its tolerance of, or support for, the Afghan Taliban or other extremists on its border with Afghanistan -- nor will it let us eradicate them."

Pollock claimed the US and NATO are jeopardizing Pakistan's "cross-border interests". Asking a rhetorical question, what are those interests, he answered, saying, the "first and foremost, to minimize the presence and influence in Afghanistan of Pakistan's own archrival, India". He acknowledged that while India is "an increasingly important regional and global partner for U.S. foreign policy", "it is in India's self-interest to contain extremist pressures in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- and one paradoxically clever way to do that is to lower India's profile in Afghanistan. During his visit, Obama should drive home the point that such self-restraint would best serve our common interest in stabilizing the region." Pollock provided other interests of Pakistan that need to be accommodated, but those were not directly linked to India's role in Afghanistan. The reason Pollock's op-ed has been discussed here in the context of Afsheen Irani's question to president Obama is primarily to find an answer to her query -- the answer, if president Obama had been forthright and honest, would perhaps have satisfied Irani.

Why Obama obfuscates

Now, to answer Irani's question, I would like to make clear that there are two principle reasons why the United States will not only not identify Pakistan as a terrorist state, but will continue to pour in money to keep Islamabad happy. The first reason is that the United States, once it got into Afghanistan, cannot get out of that rat-trap without Pakistan's "help". The "help" that Pakistan is expected to extend is largely illusory, but the situation in Afghanistan is so bad that there is little else to hold on to. If Irani recalls Shakespeare's play, The Merchant of Venice, she would know the bind Washington has gotten into. The pound of flesh needs to be paid. The shylock, in this case Pakistan, will not permit the debtor, the United States, to escape.

In his op-ed, Pollock was trying to formulate how else this pound of flesh can be paid. One course is to kick India, the archenemy of Pakistan, out of Afghanistan. He is urging president Obama to do so. On the other hand, if we consider president Obama was dishonest with his answer to Irani, Pollock was downright deceptive. During the nineteen-nineties civil war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, with the money bags handed out by the Wahhabi-promoting Saudi Arabia, helped to create the Taliban. Then, of course, the Pakistani military, dressed in Taliban garb, fought and defeated the Mujahedeen power-seekers. Where was India at the time? It was really not there and Pakistan's interest, if Pollock can recall, was to secure strategic depth (Hitler would call it the lebensraum) by gaining control of Afghanistan, if and when India invades and overruns Pakistan. Brushing aside the absurdity of this entirely motivated strategic depth concept touted by the Rawalpindi brass, what must be remembered is that the present Pakistan army chief, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, on whom the Pentagon is leaning heavily for the so-called help, has recently reiterated that he remains "India-centric", and that he fully endorses the importance of having control over Afghanistan in order to assure strategic depth for Pakistan. Doesn't Pollock know about this? Certainly he does, but like president Obama, he cannot tell the truth because it may complicate matters further with Islamabad.

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal

The second reason why the United States will never identify Pakistan as a terrorist state is because of Washington's endless worries about Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Pakistan's nuclear weapons were developed under the watch of the Americans in the nineteen-eighties when they were overly eager to get "help" from Pakistani authorities to give the erstwhile Soviet Union a black eye. Right under Washington's nose and with the money that the United States was providing to keep the jihad against the Red Army alive, Islamabad developed its nuclear weapons' capability. But Washington does not want to admit this reality, as it also refuses to accept the other reality, which is that Pakistan will not "help" the United States to eliminate the terrorist assets it has developed, come what may.

But Pakistan's nuclear weapons are a subject of serious concern in Washington because of two reasons. First, if the United States further antagonizes Pakistan, the nuclear weapons will go under the control of Beijing. That would be, in essence, like handing over Pakistan to China. The second worry of Washington is that if it antagonizes and weakens the Pakistan army, the weapons may fall into the hands of the jihadis, who consider the United States a very important enemy. In other words, if the jihadis get hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, Washington will face their wrath, perhaps more than the others will. So why antagonize Pakistan? Why not appease Islamabad with the "hope" that the Pakistan army will remain in control of its nuclear weapons; that those weapons will not be handed over to China, a potential rival of the United States; and that the jihadis will not get their hands on those weapons to test them on Washington and its allies.

I do not know whether such answers would fully satisfy Afsheen Irani, but I do know that president Obama resorted to providing her an inane answer because the reality is too painful. Briefly speaking, US policy towards Pakistan is in ruins, but no one out there has the courage to say so. They are afraid that if they say as much, the situation in that part of the world could get mighty rough.

Ramtanu Maitra is South Asia Analyst with EIR News Services Inc in Washington DC.


A few remarks:

He really should check his work before posting and NewsInsight should proof read before posting. Eg. "principle" should be "principal"

Second it begs the question that TSP weapons are from China.

Agree that US policy towards TSP is in shambles and either way the US is driving TSP into PRC's arms especially with its Containment lite strategy which India is refusing to join in overtly.


The idea that jihadis will get nukes is already happened as TSPA motto is Jihad in name of ALLAH.

What does it matter if a jihadi wears a Sam Browne belt or salwar with black turban?

The real problem is just like the Sorcerer's apprentice US played with Islamist zealots not understanding the finer points like Great Britain did. Eg. GB created KSA as moder Khialfat but never armed it nor made them resource rich like the US did with ARAMCO.

Its all Churchill's fault for he passed the baton to those who were not yet ready nor prepared.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Lalmohan » 12 Nov 2010 20:48

^^^ the baton was taken by unkil before churchill could even complain
they had no choice in the matter

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16148
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby SwamyG » 12 Nov 2010 22:30

American pundits are, increasingly, calling this visit as a strategic visit. Jobs ityadi seem to be just a facade?

All these noise from the Western pundits could further harm the Sino-Indian relationship. Whether India wants or not, by being large and in a geo-strategic position India will (already is) pushed into USA-China relationship. India will become a proxy, and proxies get really hurt. India's challenge is to ensure it does not become a proxy.

Kaplan brings the right points though.

Obama Takes Asia by Sea

In fact, the president has been confronting a new strategic map that lies beyond our messy and diversionary land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In geographical terms, two of the countries on the itinerary, India and Indonesia, are in the same increasingly pivotal region: the southern coastal areas, or “rimland” of Eurasia, which is emerging as the world’s hydrocarbon interstate, uniting energy-rich Arabia and Iran with the growing economies of the Pacific.

Gone today are the artificial divisions of cold-war-era studies: now the “Middle East,” “South Asia,” “Southeast Asia” and “East Asia” are part of a single organic continuum. In geopolitical terms, the president’s visits in all four countries are about one challenge: the rise of China on land and sea.


India is increasingly feeling hemmed in by China’s military might. It lies within the arc of operations of Chinese fighter jets based in Tibet. China is building or developing large ports in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Burma, and providing all these Indian Ocean countries with significant military and economic aid.

Although India and China fought a border war in the early 1960s, they have never really been rivals, separated as they are by the Himalayas. But the shrinkage of distance thanks to globalism and advances of military technology has spawned a rivalry that is defining the new Eurasia.

Indeed, it is India’s emergence as a great Eurasian power that constitutes the best piece of news for American strategists since the end of the cold war. Merely by rising without any formal alliance with Washington, democratic India balances statist China. Even closer links between the United States and India would be better — and no doubt factored into Mr. Obama’s talk of backing India for a seat on the United Nations Security Council — but are made complex by our chaotic land wars.


While President Obama would like to withdraw from Afghanistan, Indian leaders remain afraid he will do precisely that. To Indians, Afghanistan is not a distant Central Asian country: it is historically part of the subcontinent. Empires as distant as the Harappans in the fourth millennium B.C. and as recent as the Mughals in the early modern era made Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India part of the same polity. Indian elites carry this history in their bones.

India wants a relatively benign and non-fundamentalist Afghanistan as a way of limiting Pakistan’s influence in the region. (That’s why India supported the Soviet-puppet Afghan leaders in the 1980s against the C.I.A.-backed mujahedeen.)

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16148
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby SwamyG » 12 Nov 2010 22:41

One more on the similar lines Why President Obama is right about India

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby ramana » 12 Nov 2010 22:42

A superficial article throwing analogies to appear learned.

First of all India is not hemmed in by China.

Second of all any war that PRC initiates will go nuclear fo PRC cannot defeat India conventionally. That is a fact of life. All this suntzu/wahzu are because of that with US help.

Thirdly its height of hope to think India will again become Gungadin especially after US has done its damndest to harm India by those sanctiosn while its minion in Cold War, PRC, was transferring nukes to TSP. And after Cold War ended was transferrng missiles(M5 & M6 and NoDongs) to reach all of India.

Fourthly, Rise of India is for Indians to benefit not far away charlatans who ignited Isalmist fires without knowing what it was.

Fifthly, As India does not have contiguous borders and Afghanistan is multi-ethnic India's policy is to support who ever controls Kabul legitimately. For Kabul is the center of gravity of Afghanistan.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby svinayak » 12 Nov 2010 22:47

SwamyG wrote:
While President Obama would like to withdraw from Afghanistan, Indian leaders remain afraid he will do precisely that. To Indians, Afghanistan is not a distant Central Asian country: it is historically part of the subcontinent. Empires as distant as the Harappans in the fourth millennium B.C. and as recent as the Mughals in the early modern era made Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India part of the same polity. Indian elites carry this history in their bones.


He should have put it this way - Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India was part of the same empires in ancient and medieval India. It is not only the elites but the entire population has the same history in India.
His words imply that rest of the population are not connected by history to the same region.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21172
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Prem » 12 Nov 2010 23:41

All the fallacies and the policies stemming from this fall apart like Paki Musharraf if one realize that China cannot afford to go to war with india. And even if it can , their capacity will be/is on downward trend by the day unless India leaders realy Afpak themselves . Once there is chance of Nuke flying like Diwali al Grande , all rational minds carry fear for what they hold dear. Khan Pundits should wait till Son Zu finish the "phera'. Indian partnership dont get cosumated unless there are seven Pheras around Agni, if indian leaders are smart enough they can accumulate lot of dowry before committing themeslevs for long term relation. Timing is perfect now to strike good bargain .

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby CRamS » 13 Nov 2010 00:04

Guys:

This morning on Diane Rehm show, they were talking about Obama's Asia visit. The entire focus was on G-20 meeting, and like the rest of US media, expcet for Glen Beck's and faux nooge mockery, there was hardly any coverage of Obama's India trip. Just to instigate the panelits a bit, I called in. You can listen to my question and responses thereof from about 26 mins 30 seconds onwards.

Frederic
BRFite
Posts: 435
Joined: 04 Dec 2008 04:49

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Frederic » 13 Nov 2010 00:15

CRamS wrote:Guys:

This morning on Diane Rehm show, they were talking about Obama's Asia visit. The entire focus was on G-20 meeting, and like the rest of US media, expcet for Glen Beck's and faux nooge mockery, there was hardly any coverage of Obama's India trip. Just to instigate the panelits a bit, I called in. You can listen to my question and responses thereof from about 26 mins 30 seconds onwards.



Good one there Ram. To the point and it seemed to put at least one commentator on the spot.

Whenever I hear the US talk about its "need" for Pakistan the tone is akin to a family head talking about a child molester who is detested but unfortunately for various "realistic" reasons needs to be kept inside the house knowing full well that he will pounce on the nearest little one at the first opportunity.

Zero-sum game my foot.

Best
Fred

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Nov 2010 01:53

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6911273.cms?prtpage=1

Barack Obama , the charmer, won over India. The US President enthralled Indians by declaring that “in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member” . He comforted them by saying he will “continue to insist to Pakistan’s leaders that terrorist safe havens within their borders are unacceptable, and that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks be brought to justice.”

He flattered them by recalling India’s ‘treasured past’ , its invention of the digit ‘zero’ and its civilisation that “has been shaping the world for thousands of years” . And he delighted them by labelling the US-India relationship ‘the defining partnership of the 21st century’ . Mahatma Gandhi found mention in almost all his speeches, to the extent that he linked his rise as president to “Gandhi and the message he shared with America and the world” .

Obama came as a salesman for his country, bagging multibillion-dollar deals and laying the ground for more big contracts, yet the visit will be remembered for his public diplomacy in seeking to elevate his host nation to ‘its rightful place in the world’ . A year earlier, Obama had stroked India’s collective ego by inviting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for his presidency’s first state dinner, leading to the joke that while China gets a deferential America and Pakistan secures billions of dollars in US aid periodically, India is easily won over with a sumptuous dinner and nice compliments.

India actually has exposed its main weakness for long — a craving for international recognition and status. While some states have been able to surmount their colonial legacies, India remains hobbled by a subaltern mindset. It attaches greater value to receiving external recognition and approbation than to the pursuit of resolute, goal-oriented statecraft . It is thus particularly vulnerable to seduction by praise. Other powers play to that weakness through pleasing but empty gestures or statements amounting to little more than ego massage.

In fact, Obama’s predecessor, George W Bush, openly played to India’s ego and to Pakistan’s longing for security while unveiling his momentous decision to sell F-16 s in March 2005 to Islamabad . The same day his administration patronisingly offered to help make India a ‘major world power in the 21st century’ . The Indian elation that greeted the offer helped obscure the larger implications of the F-16 decision.

That decision marked the beginning of a major US rearming of Pakistan with largely India-centric weapon systems. Such lethal supply to Islamabad has continued to date even as the US has emerged as the single largest arms seller to India since 2008. Indian diplomacy has not only failed to persuade Washington to stop arming a terror-exporting Pakistan , but also has put up with the US building parallel intelligence-sharing , defence cooperation and strategic relationships with Islamabad and New Delhi.

US policy effectively has moved from hyphenation to parallelism. The new approach involves following separate parallel tracks with India and Pakistan, thereby allowing the US to push its interests better. That approach also permits the US to prop up the Pakistani state without causing a crisis with India, with Obama pledging more than $10 billion in aid to Islamabad since last year.


IN NEW Delhi, Obama, ‘the great communicator’ , not only pandered to India’s love of flattery, but also exploited its itch to join every club, including those that were formed to target it. He dangled the prospect of India’s admission — ‘in a phased manner’ after the ‘evolution’ of new membership criteria — to four US-led , technology-control cartels. The capstone of his outreach , however, came when he dangled another carrot — helping India ‘in the years
ahead’ to secure a permanent place on the UN Security Council.

That dangling proved the shortest and surest way to India’s heart. The loud applause in Parliament and the national euphoria that greeted that statement helped block out the caveats that Obama had slipped in. Like a schoolmaster lecturing a pupil, Obama told India that if it wanted to make the grade as a candidate for a UNSC permanent seat in the years ahead, it needed to do more, including sharing ‘increased responsibility’ and helping strengthen international norms.

Merely acknowledging India’s claim to a permanent seat costs the US nothing, other than displeasing Pakistan. The US long ago acknowledged Japan’s right to UNSC permanent membership, but that hasn’t brought Tokyo closer to that goal. In truth, Washington has yet to endorse any proposal for UNSC enlargement that can be put to vote. In fact, no existing permanent member favours enlargement in reality (as opposed to rhetoric). And it is doubtful that new veto-holding permanent members will ever be added to an institution that emerged from the ruins of a world war. But that has not stopped India from chasing dreams.

Another area where Obama used beguiling words to thrill his hosts was on US technology controls, to the extent that Manmohan Singh prematurely thanked him for his ‘decision’ to ‘lift’ those controls . Far from agreeing to free India from the rigours of such trade curbs, the US has merely committed itself to a continued step-by-step liberalisation of its export controls in sync with Indian actions and concessions. If any decision was announced , it was the US plan to remove some more Indian entities from its blacklist , the ‘Entity List’ . While a welcome move, the removal does not automatically entitle those entities to import high technology because of the broader controls that remain in place against India.

Obama’s visit will undoubtedly strengthen an already-warming bilateral relationship whose geostrategic direction is clearly set — towards closer collaboration . While it is too much to expect a congruence of US and Indian national security objectives in all spheres, the two countries are likely to deepen their cooperation in areas where their interests converge.

Having been non-aligned , India is set to become multi-aligned , while tilting more towards Washington, even as it preserves the core element of non-alignment — strategic autonomy. Obama, for his part, will be remembered for using his power of oratory to recast himself as India’s friend in the same class as Bush. He came with very little to deliver and more to take, yet cast a spell on India.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby krisna » 13 Nov 2010 06:50

Image
cartoon from mail today

Image
from telegraph Kolkatta.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16148
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby SwamyG » 13 Nov 2010 07:03

^^^
Haaa haaa lol. That was a good one from Telegraph. It is true. When we scratch or rub animals like dogs, cats and cows on their neck, they kind of position their neck like an invitation for us to rub or scratch more. So are the Indians, the more furriners praise us the more we crave for it. And the furriners know it.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby krisna » 13 Nov 2010 07:04

Random thoughts of demented mind
Dear Mr. Obama,

Thank you for visiting India. Thank you for considering us worthy of the honor of hosting you. Thank you for dancing to our humble music. Thank you for allowing us to buy USD 10 billion worth of your goods, unlike the poor Pakistanis who get them for free. Thank you for allowing us to create 50,000 American jobs—we cannot tell you how honored that makes us feel. (Take that Pakistan !). Thank you for promising to support us for a seat in the United Nations Security Council using the same ambiguously “some time some day when the time is right and under appropriate conditions” language mothers use when they don’t want to say no to a child asking for an expensive gift.


Thank you for using the word “frankly” (which in diplomacy is a very strong word) while chiding us for not criticizing the undemocratic regime in Burma. Now that you have scolded us, I hope that many of us will see the light. The thing is sir that many of us look upon US as such an inspiration that we tend to follow everything you do (low-rider jeans, pizza, saying “facepalm” and “whateva” and suchlike). Which is why so many are actually waiting for you to criticize, virulently and continuously, undemocratic regimes in say Saudi Arabia as some kind of template as to how we will frame our condemnation of Burma. You see sir, some of our diplomats think that foreign policy is not about principles but about pragmatics and since we have extensive business contacts with Saudi Arabia sorry Burma, it behooves us to look the other way when they do something not quite as honorable. Thank you for showing us once that foreign policy should be about the high moral ground.



Again we look towards you sir to give us a template of how to have nurture a smaller neighbor. Many of us have grown up seeing Cuba, a country that really has never really done anything serious to harm you (because they are too puny and weak), still labor under an embargo since 1962 and thus never understood the need to maintain friendly relationships with unfriendly neighbors.


Finally thanks not so much to you but member of your staff Press Secretary Gibbs. When a brown slumdog suggested that five and not eight US pressmen be allowed in due to security management considerations, Gibbs announced “loudly and persistently” (or as they say rather boorishly and undiplomatically), in the true tradition of the classic member of the male baraat, that he would pull the US President from a meeting with Dr. Singh, no matter that it would be a humiliating gesture to the host PM.


As per the LA Times, (a liberal media outlet and Obama cheerleader) which applauded Gibbs for standing upto press access to the US President (why allowing 5 would have been any worse for freedom of the US press than 8 is of course never explained): [Link]


Thank you dear LA Times. Even more importantly, thank you for bringing out the disparity between the two sides——- when the US president comes to India promoting US industry, it is actually in the interests of the hosts (i.e. India’s) own political goals to be obsequious to the President’s underlings. And when the Indian PM goes to the US promoting India’s industry, it is again in the interests of the guests (India’s) political goals to be obsequious to US officials. Thank you for showing what a true superpower is and why we are not.

Now if we were a real superpower and say the Indian Press Secretary was seen shouting at a member of the US administration threatening to walk out with our PM if his dictats were not made, you would have just said “This is our country. Our rules. Accept it or you can take your PM with you.”

Right?

But we cannot. Because we are not. You see, we do not have the audacity of a backbone, reduced to being giggly crush-striken schoolgirls whenever a foreigner pats us on our head, even when we are the customers rather than the salesmen.

Thanks, Mr Gibbs, for showing that the customer is not always right by literally poking your finger in our face.


nicely written satire

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby krisna » 13 Nov 2010 08:01

Does India crave international recognition?
In fact, Obama’s predecessor, George W Bush, openly played to India’s ego and to Pakistan’s longing for security while unveiling his momentous decision to sell F-16 s in March 2005 to Islamabad . The same day his administration patronisingly offered to help make India a ‘major world power in the 21st century’ . The Indian elation that greeted the offer helped obscure the larger implications of the F-16 decision.
That decision marked the beginning of a major US rearming of Pakistan with largely India-centric weapon systems. Such lethal supply to Islamabad has continued to date even as the US has emerged as the single largest arms seller to India since 2008. Indian diplomacy has not only failed to persuade Washington to stop arming a terror-exporting Pakistan , but also has put up with the US building parallel intelligence-sharing , defence cooperation and strategic relationships with Islamabad and New Delhi.

US policy effectively has moved from hyphenation to parallelism. The new approach involves following separate parallel tracks with India and Pakistan, thereby allowing the US to push its interests better. That approach also permits the US to prop up the Pakistani state without causing a crisis with India, with Obama pledging more than $10 billion in aid to Islamabad since last year.

Merely acknowledging India’s claim to a permanent seat costs the US nothing, other than displeasing Pakistan. The US long ago acknowledged Japan’s right to UNSC permanent membership, but that hasn’t brought Tokyo closer to that goal. In truth, Washington has yet to endorse any proposal for UNSC enlargement that can be put to vote. In fact, no existing permanent member favours enlargement in reality (as opposed to rhetoric). And it is doubtful that new veto-holding permanent members will ever be added to an institution that emerged from the ruins of a world war. But that has not stopped India from chasing dreams.
( monumental mistake of gifting the UN seat to panda is all over again)

Having been non-aligned , India is set to become multi-aligned , while tilting more towards Washington, even as it preserves the core element of non-alignment — strategic autonomy. Obama, for his part, will be remembered for using his power of oratory to recast himself as India’s friend in the same class as Bush. He came with very little to deliver and more to take, yet cast a spell on India.


damn you do damn if you dont do,
No mention of Indo US nooclear deal whether good or bad for us, how we managed it, sanctions after newclear bum in pokharan and how it was managed. It is not uniformly bad. No mention of good ones.
Many in the media says GOI falls for flattery. Is GOI so easily swayed by it or is it just the way the look :roll:

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby CRamS » 13 Nov 2010 10:26

What is the Gibbs version of the white maacho boy Vs SDRE security personnel altercation?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby svinayak » 13 Nov 2010 13:14

krisna wrote:Does India crave international recognition?
No mention of Indo US nooclear deal whether good or bad for us, how we managed it, sanctions after newclear bum in pokharan and how it was managed. It is not uniformly bad. No mention of good ones.
Many in the media says GOI falls for flattery. Is GOI so easily swayed by it or is it just the way the look :roll:


American media controls the global big media and gives maximum coverage worldwide. It is the MNCs of the global media.
India news if ignored and under reported will give less global coverage of India even if other regions /media corp cover India. That is how big US media companies are.

So this Indian elite craving for American recognition comes from this past habit of being noticed by the US media which had built its world coverage based on world population sentiments(to counter communist propaganda) during the cold war. This continued after that and DIE was enamored of this media coverage and so called 'recognition'. They could claim ownership and privileges among the SDRE with these credentials.

This desire for flattery comes from this same desire and need to be given recognition by the US elite and US global media. GOI may have shown some of this tendency but it is not uniform.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Philip » 13 Nov 2010 13:24

In the immortal words of Peter Sellers in the film "The Party",...

"Indians do not think who they are,they know who they are"!

Therefore,Indians who know themselves do not crave for recognition as many others do."Knowing thyself", has been the key aspiration for Indians for millenia,whose wisdom attracts millions of westerners each year to our land in search of the "truth".In fact a couple of close westerner friends have just finished visiting their guru in India.

The cartoon depciting the Mess-iah's visit and the cliched words that he said is typicla of dubious diplomacy of the time.Flatter your guests and make them feel that you are on their side.I wished one of the students had asked him about his greatest inspiration as he claims,Gandhiji,and his favourite quote from the Mahatma.I'm sure he would've been floored.He could've even been asked who Gandhi's assasin was.Was it 1.Bhagat Singh 2.Beant Singh or 3.Nathuram Singh? What an opportunity missed.Perhaps we can still quiz him on another occasion.

I have a word of caution to those who say that China cannot afford to attack India.Beware.Pak is their prime proxy.If India and Pak slug it out in a war thta could go nuclear too,who wins? No prizes for the right answer.Secondly,have members been keenly watching developments ibn Burma? China is going to build a secret N-plant for them and if Burma,with 500,000+ troops is added to the equation as a second proxy with which to hem India in,the red light warning signal will start flashing.China is also sending a "special envoy" to Lankan to witness Pres.Rajapaks'e swearing in for his second term.Is India also sending a "bigwig" to counter China? The Chinese are weaving a deadly web of allies,proxies and fellow travellers,who in moments of global crisis will support Chiuna first against India.India's frist task is to "secure the neighbourhood",with dilomatic and military agreements with friendly nations and then rapidly buid up military forces to be able to take on the PRC,Pak and Burma simultaneously.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 985
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Guddu » 13 Nov 2010 18:15

....
[/b] A lot depends on General Kayani. While Pakistani generals, faced with reality, have been known to come to terms with it, Pakistani civilians like Jinnah and Bhutto behaved irrationally. Gandhi offered Jinnah prime ministership of India and he rejected it and chose to be the Quaid-e-Azam of a moth-eaten Pakistan. Bhutto chose to break up Pakistan to become the leader of one part. It is now for Kayani to make the choice. Obviously Zardari and Gilani have no role in his views.


People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them.

- Jean Monnet

Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9255
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Hari Seldon » 13 Nov 2010 20:28

Pakistan's deep faith in Amerika and alla has yet to be shown to be false. These two powerful entities have managed to intervene in every situation where crisis threatened to spin outta control and bail out papistan. I see no reason for any papistani 'leader' - fauji or civvy, to come to terms with aam adbul's worsening fate in papistan anytime soon. IMVHO, of course.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Raja Bose » 14 Nov 2010 00:25

How true how true...

Great Bong wrote:However if we do not greet the washing powder salesman by opening the door and doing a belly dance wearing thongs, why do we debase ourselves when it comes to the American President, and that too someone like Obama who has consistently displayed an unapologetic insensitivity towards Indian interests. ...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby ramana » 14 Nov 2010 21:15

One week after the visit the chatterati are still figuring out the meaning of the visit.

Best way is to see the impact from Indian, US and PRC-TSP viewing angle.

Indian views:
- Sanctions on most bodies removed
- Some military hardware purchased to counter the outsourcing angst in US.
- - If Boeing ups the price then can forget about that.
-Odious agreements not singed in toto at this time.
- Kashmir stone throwing tamasha/nautanki of no use.
- Mumbai college student expressed average Indian's outrage and in open press.
- QE2 is good for US. ;)

US Views:
- managed to sell mil hardware to offset outsourcing angst
- potential to create more jobs due to trade in high tech areas now out of sanctions.
- established virtual perception of alliance with India
- - India card for PRC -TSP duo

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby negi » 15 Nov 2010 06:17

Unwarranted And Jarring-B. Raman

It would have been impolite and inappropriate for our leaders to have replied to Obama immediately after his speech. He was our honoured guest. Now that his visit is over and he has left the country, it is important for our Prime Minister to point out that Obama at his Town Hall meeting at Mumbai on November 7 had sought to justify the US reluctance to condemn Pakistan on the terrorism issue on the ground that Pakistan is strategically important to the US. Washington DC has been silent on the suppression of the rights of the Balochs, the Sindhis, the Mohajirs,the Pashtuns and the people of Gilgit-Baltistan by successive regimes in Pakistan. It has kept quiet on the frequent massacre of the Shias by the Sunni extremists and the failure of the government to protect them. It has not taken any action for stopping the use of terrorism by the state of Pakistan and for the interrogation of A.Q.Khan, the nuclear scientist, on his clandestine proliferation of military nuclear technology and equipment to North Korea, Iran and Libya. After 9/11, the US, which was dependent on Pakistan for its war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, kept quiet on the suppression of democracy by Gen Pervez Musharraf. In spite of all the transgressions of the military regime and its successor, it has been pouring money into Pakistan by way of economic and military assistance. For nearly three decades, the US closed its eyes to the suppression of the human rights of the Indonesian people by the Suharto-led military regime. Obama's remarks on India's relations with Myanmar were totally unjustified. Myanmar is strategically as important to India as Pakistan is to the US.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby shiv » 15 Nov 2010 06:33

In India the Obama visit has dropped completely out of the news. Yesterday's timepass.

As soon as Ombaba left Kangres did a downhill ski and sent Chavan and Kalmadi packing - leaving the news headlines to concentrate on Telecom Raja and is 120,000 crore (USD 26 Billion) 2G auction scam. The man has just resigned. Ombaba was a small interlude between the 36,000 crore CWG scam, the games and the 120,000 crore 2G scam. The India US business generated will be less than 30% of the money exchanged in just 2 scams.

Need to move on. Move on. IB4TL

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Lalmohan » 15 Nov 2010 13:58

the real action happened at the G20 - for the US and for India
the ombaba darshan was just nautanki

ShivaS
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 14:23

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby ShivaS » 15 Nov 2010 17:47

200 percent agee with Shiv

Kal ki baath purni nayi din hai nayi omengae

our news cycle should be faster than american attention deficit disorder

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21172
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Prem » 16 Nov 2010 05:01


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby ramana » 16 Nov 2010 06:47

long post with a set of op-eds..


Obama appears to punch India's buttons
By HARSH V. PANT
http://search. japantimes. co.jp/cgi- bin/eo20101114a1 .html
Special to The Japan TimesLONDON — Barack Obama's visit to India last week ended on a high note. After downplaying expectations for some months now, the U.S. president made all the right noises in his address to the Indian Parliament.The most significant was his declaration that the United States will back India's bid for a permanent seat on an expanded U.N. Security Council. It was a major policy shift that India has long been clamoring for and Washington has been reluctant to offer.In looking "forward to a reformed Security Council" that includes India as a permanent member, he warmed the hearts of Indian policymakers who have long viewed American support as a litmus test. There was no hesitation in Obama's gesture, which was probably the strongest endorsement the U.S. has given yet to any state for permanent U.N. membership.On Pakistan, too, Obama was deferential to Indian sensitivities. He maintained that "it is in the interest of India and
Pakistan to reduce tensions between themselves, and the U.S. cannot impose solutions to these problems." He also made it clear that "there can be no haven for terror," suggesting that the U.S. "will continue to insist that Pakistan's leadership bring the (2008) Mumbai attackers to justice."The real focus of Obama's visit was, economic. Obama realizes that America's economic revival is the key to his re-election in 2012. His media managers have termed his Asia trip important for developing linkages with the booming economies of Asia.This was reflected in Obama's comment that "when American people ask me why you are visiting India, I want to say that India just created 50,000 jobs, so we should not be talking about protectionism. " Outsourcing has been a problem area and the Obama administration' s handling of it has irked the Indian corporate sector. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh argued that "Indians are not in the business of stealing jobs from the
U.S."During Obama's visit, more than 20 deals worth $10 billion were signed by the corporate sectors of the two states. These deals included the sale of military transport aircraft, civilian airplanes, mining equipment and jet engines. Trade barriers and infrastructure bottlenecks were raised by Obama as problems for greater American investment.Other key agreements signed by Delhi and Washington during Obama's visit include a pact on setting up a joint clean energy research and development center, memoranda on a Global Center for Nuclear Energy Partnership, cooperation on a global disease protection center, and a pact on technical cooperation in monsoon studies.India and the U.S. also agreed to work closely on agricultural development and women's empowerment in Afghanistan as well as on joint efforts to promote a reliable information and communications infrastructure, with a goal of free, fair and secure access to cyberspace.The two states decided to
put in place a four-part export control reform program that includes American support for India's membership in multilateral export control regimes.In line with Obama's declaration that India is no longer a rising power but has already "arrived," both countries have announced a dialogue on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, which will expand current consultations to include East Asia, West Asia and Central Asia. This is also a signal to an increasingly assertive China that other states in the region will respond to Chinese projection of power.After all the hype surrounding Obama's visit, both sides must be relatively satisfied with the outcome. The U.S.-India relationship, which Obama described as "one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century," still lacks a larger vision. Both sides have a litany of issues they would like the other side to work on. In the absence of a strategic worldview, this becomes a mere exercise in splitting
differences. Moreover, while Obama has managed to make the right noises in Delhi, it remains to be seen what he will be able to deliver.The expansion of the Security Council won't happen anytime soon, as there is no consensus among the five permanent members on this. China remains opposed to any new member from Asia sitting at the high table. The process is complicated and will take a long time to reach fruition.So, in many ways it was a cost-free option for Obama to declare his support for India's membership and then wait and see what happens. On the issue of Pakistan, Obama is intent on getting out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, but the key to American withdrawal is in the hands of the Pakistani military. The Pakistan army's refusal to abandon all support of cross-border terrorism — in India and Afghanistan — remains the biggest hindrance in achieving regional peace and stability.It' s not clear if Obama and Delhi are on the same page on this
crucial issue. Pakistan continues to use various ploys at its disposal in refusing to redeploy forces away from the border with India to fight militants in the frontier region near Afghanistan. Many in the U.S., including David Petraeus, the top commander in Pakistan, are sympathetic to Pakistan's position and have suggested putting more pressure on India to settle its problems with Islamabad.The success of Obama's visit will depend on how Washington treats Indian concerns in the coming and months. The visit was the easy part.

Harsh V. Pant teaches at King's College London.



The US is dancing to India's tune by Robert Grenier



The US is dancing to India's tuneIt is time to deconstruct the prevailing narrative on US-India relations.
Robert Grenier
Last Modified: 13 Nov 2010 11:44 GMT
More than just an embarrassing photograph? [AFP]It is an amusing photograph, and one can readily empathise with its subject. Politicians , after all, are always being pressed to do undignified things at public appearances, whether it is wearing silly hats or kissing squalling babies. But despite the insistent entreaties of the dance troupe at Mumbai's Holy Name High School this past week, Barack Obama, the US president, really ought to have kept his seat. For in taking the stage to engage in some slightly awkward gyrations before the press cameras, he was unintentionally providing an apt metaphor for current US policy: the US is dancing to India's tune.

There is an evolving US policy narrative concerning India which has gained great momentum over the past 10 years or so, is uncritically parroted by the US press, and which generally runs like this: India, the world's second-largest country, is a rapidly-developing nation of huge economic potential, beginning to take its place as one of the great powers of the 21st century. Distrustful as it is of its even larger neighbour to the north, it is therefore a natural strategic ally of the US in the latter's efforts to contain an increasingly assertive and often belligerent China. As a frequent victim of Islamic extremists, India and the US therefore are also natural allies in the 'war on terror'. Moreover, as the world's two largest democracies, India and the US share deep and abiding values, and are similarly devoted to the benefits of expanded international trade and economic globalisation.

And so, the narrative continues, the US must recognise and promote India's emerging status on the global stage, foster expansion of bilateral economic and trade ties, and develop a far-reaching geostrategic relationship which goes well beyond the narrow construct of the Indo-Pakistani rivalry, to which Indian policy has been traditionally confined.

Building on foundations begun by President Clinton and greatly advanced by George W. Bush, Obama therefore has used his recent three-day Indian trip to add further to the edifice of this putative partnership. He has stood before the Indian parliament to promise US support for India's accession to the UN Security Council. He has made a gift of lifting export controls on a host of militarily sensitive technologies. And despite the recent unpleasantness of a renewed popular uprising against repressive Indian rule in Kashmir, Obama has made clear to his Indian hosts that the US will not interfere in the dispute. Indeed, on repeated occasions during the past week, the US president has asserted that the relationship between India and the US is "the defining partnership of the 21st century".

Deconstructing the prevailing narrative

Honestly. With all respect, and even allowing for the natural exuberance of political rhetoric, that formulation is pure blather. To see why, we should take some time to deconstruct the prevailing narrative.

India is indeed a huge country with a rapidly-growing economy of enormous potential, with which US economic relations are destined to become increasingly important. The fact is, however, that those economic and trade relations are moving forward on their own momentum and of their own accord, quite independently of any US effort to forge a "strategic partnership" .

Indeed, US-India trade relations are virtually impervious to other aspects of the official relationship between them. For the US government to suggest an important role in promoting continued private sector relations with India is rather like taking credit for a rising tide or the falling rain.

US promotion of India as a strategic counterweight to China, depending upon who is propounding it, is either disingenuous or simply wrong-headed. Yes, India harbours distrust of China as a result of past border disputes and the latter's close ties with Pakistan. Those concerns are not reciprocated in anything approaching full measure on the Chinese side, however. Chinese hegemonic designs are focused on East and South-East Asia, not some minor enclaves in the Himalayas. Pakistan aside, the areas of geo-strategic interest between China and India do not overlap; those between the US and China do.

To suggest that India would somehow allow itself to be used by the US as a stalking-horse, exerting military pressure on China - its largest trading partner, by the way - to promote interests other than its own, is a hopeless exercise in wishful thinking. If US firms can make profits selling sophisticated weapons to India, fine for them; but do not expect those weapons to be deployed in furtherance of US policy.

As true regional experts such as Teresita Schaffer have recently pointed out, India has a long history of strategic autonomy. Americans may have quickly forgotten about India's legacy as a champion of "non-alignment, " its past firm orientation with the old Soviet Union and its testy Cold War relations with the US, but Indians have not.

As columnist Tom Friedman, a promoter of US-India strategic relations, has recently acknowledged in the pages ofThe New York Times, Indian elites are more likely to be preoccupied with US "hegemony" and "imperialism" than they are to worry about how to promote some broad, open-ended strategic alliance with the US.

Nowhere is that Cold War hangover more evident than in the Indian intelligence and security services. Their relations with their US counterparts have traditionally been frosty, at best, and I understand them to be little improved now.

While US counter-terror concerns are literally global, India's are very narrow and particular, focused on organised Kashmiri militants and domestic extremists. In short, while the US can be of considerable help to India - as evidenced when, according to press reports at the time, the US was able to broker effective information- sharing between India and Pakistan concerning the militants responsible for the November, 2008 Mumbai attacks - India is able to do precious little for the US in return.

A motivator of terrorists

Rather than focusing on India's status as a victim of terrorism and a putative ally in combating it, the US would do better to focus on India's role as a motivator of terrorists, and press it to reform.

Part of the backdrop of Obama's visit, conveniently ignored by most Americans, is the renewed popular uprising against the massive, armed Indian occupation of the Kashmir valley, and the continuation of India's traditional means of combating it: the arbitrary detentions, the torture, the "disappearances, " the systematic rapes.

As Indian writer Arundhati Roy has pointed out, it is just as armed militancy in the Kashmir valley, long supported by Pakistan, progressively fades, that a new generation of unarmed Kashmiri youth picks up stones in the struggle for self-determination.

For the US, this is not "merely" a matter of humanitarian concern, but of core security interests: how does the US expect to counter a "terrorist narrative" which appeals to Muslims hungry for justice in part by attacking the US as an ally of their oppressors, when the US willfully ignores the demands of justice in Kashmir?

The US decision to turn a page by negotiating a civil nuclear cooperation pact with India in 2008 has a compelling logic behind it. US counter-proliferati on policy had been hopelessly outdated, and needed to take account both of current realities and of the basic national security concerns which influence nations' nuclear related decisions.

Arguably, it was the literal-minded and inflexible application of past US counter-proliferati on policy - which ignored India's "indigenous" nuclear programme, while punishing Pakistan's efforts to seek international assistance for a parallel effort which it felt its national survival required - had the unintended effect of forcing Pakistan down a rogue path, and ironically exacerbated the South Asian nuclear arms race.

Rather than using the new Indian agreement as a rough model for its dealings with others, to include Pakistan, however, the US has made the Indian agreement exceptional. Thus, in a repeat of history, it has again forced Pakistan to turn to China for assistance. Predicta bly, the Chinese have been forthcoming, negotiating their own civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan this year, but one which arguably provides substantially fewer proliferation safeguards than a US-negotiated deal would otherwise have achieved.

Ironically, one of the US motives in reaching a civilian nuclear agreement with India was to promote US nuclear power exports. Given the stringent accident liability regime imposed by the Indian parliament, however, private US civilian nuclear suppliers are destined to be frozen out. The exceptional nuclear cooperation deal, which only the US could push through, will redound instead to the commercial benefit of Russia and France.

Romantic fantasy

The reason for the clear disparity between US and Indian benefits in the relationship as currently constructed is that while the US is engaging in a form of romantic fantasy regarding India, the Indians remain focused on their interests - as very narrowly defined.

A number of observers, including this writer, have argued in the past that US relations with Pakistan should be less "transactional" - less oriented around demands and rewards - and more broadly conducive to a genuine partnership. Given the important disparities in the two countries' estimates of their tactical national interests, however, and given the importance attached by the US to assistance only Pakistan can provide, relations between the two countries are nonetheless condemned to remain fundamentally transactional.

With regard to India, by contrast, the US would do well to make its dealings more transactional, not less. In return for promotion of India's admission to the club of great powers, the US should insist that it take on the responsibilities of one. Currently, the political deficit in US relations with India is measured not so much in costs, but in lost opportunities - ironically not just for the US, but for India, as well.

For example, both the US and India have a common interest in a stable Afghanistan whose space is denied as a haven to international terrorists. An Indian policy of rational restraint in Afghanistan, rather than its current pursuit of zero sum advantage over Pakistan, would make it far easier for the US to gain active Pakistani assistance in achieving such an outcome, to India's ultimate benefit.

Similarly, a stable Pakistan no longer in thrall to, or threatened by the same Islamically- inspired extremists who pose a physical threat to India is very much in India's interest. A settlement of the Kashmir dispute which recognised the legitimate rights of Kashmiris, and which thereby provided a politically face saving way for Pakistan to accept an agreement which inevitably, and by any objective measure, would favour India while undercutting support for the extremists, should be very much on the cards. Given India's manifest inability to achieve such an outcome on its own, moreover, the US should insist on a quiet role in brokering such a deal, to the benefit of all concerned.

US demands of India, in other words, should not involve a sacrifice of India's national interests, which it would not concede in any case. Rather, the US should be coaxing India toward an enlightened and far-sighted approach to achieving those national interests. The fact that the US is wooing India like a lovesick adolescent, offering blandishments and making concessions in the vain hope of gaining what India will not and cannot provide, while at the same time eschewing pressure for those things India could and should provide, is simply unconscionable.

Should India refuse to pursue a more enlightened self-interest, as well it may, at least the US should stop promoting it as though it were.

In short, it is time for the reverie to end. For the benefit of both countries, the US must stop dancing heedlessly to the Indian tune.Robert Grenier was the CIA's chief of station in Islamabad, Pakistan, from 1999 to 2002. He was also the director of the CIA's counter-terrorism centre.The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby svinayak » 16 Nov 2010 12:34


Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Lalmohan » 16 Nov 2010 13:37

the grenier article is highly indicative of the ignorant and blind pro-pakistan sentiment within the US establishment. this is the former CIA station chief in islamabad - clearly showing signs of stockholm syndrome having spent too many hashish infused nights in pindi with his tight buddies in the ISI

wack thoo

PrasadZ
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 08:42

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby PrasadZ » 16 Nov 2010 16:33

"Khamenei urges Muslims to 'help' Kashmir"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

Looks like a first !
Khamenei, himself, has never mentioned the K word before. Blowback from alignment with the US?

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby CRamS » 17 Nov 2010 20:44

Tom Friedman's take on the cost of Obama's trip. Recall, some clown in the DDM put out this $200 million/day nonsense, and since this was a convenient "fact" for the tea party Nazis to attack Obama, it spread like wild fire. And given the wide following tea party Nazis have, the real strategic content of Obama's trip is almost non existant in the US media. (As an aside, the latest round the clock nonsense on US media is some royal UK clown's engagement). How can one expect any kind of understanding & empathy from such a populace and their leadership elite on TSP terror targeting India? The self absorption is so complete, that it is TSP that has the right pulse: just say we are going after the mighty Al Queda, and everything else can be swept under the rug. Look at the press Mush is getting where he repeats this same theme to the hilt. Thoo.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby Lalmohan » 17 Nov 2010 21:14

paquistan succeeds by saying al-qaeda =/= kashmiri(pakjabi) terror
india has not as yet managed to concretely link the two for the americans (never will given who much they love their munna's gubo)
explains why this season's kashmir front agitation du jour was intifada flavoured... the LET linkage to al-qaeda was getting too close to the red-line
making it intifada flavoured waters down the indian line completely

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby svinayak » 17 Nov 2010 21:17

CRamS wrote:Tom Friedman's take on the cost of Obama's trip. Recall, some clown in the DDM put out this $200 million/day nonsense, and since this was a convenient "fact" for the tea party Nazis to attack Obama, it spread like wild fire. And given the wide following tea party Nazis have, the real strategic content of Obama's trip is almost non existant in the US media. (As an aside, the latest round the clock nonsense on US media is some royal UK clown's engagement). How can one expect any kind of understanding & empathy from such a populace and their leadership elite on TSP terror targeting India? The self absorption is so complete, that it is TSP that has the right pulse: just say we are going after the mighty Al Queda, and everything else can be swept under the rug. Look at the press Mush is getting where he repeats this same theme to the hilt. Thoo.

Can this be called a developed country.
Maariv, Israel

Smile, America
You’re on Candid Camera!

http://watchingamerica.com/News/75219/s ... id-camera/

By Avishag Hayik
Obama is indeed a candy for the eyes, but a poison for the body.
Translated By Viktoria Lymar
4 November 2010
Edited by Hoishan Chan
Israel - Maariv - Original Article (Hebrew)

Just like their yearning for fast food and easily available abundance — so Americans fell into a trap and elected a president void of content two years ago. Now they are trying to recuperate.

I’ve got fabulous advice for you, fellow Israelis: Every time you feel like you are in a position of slight inferiority, and lack of confidence threatens to take over every part of your body, please turn on the American channel Home Shopping Network or watch the programs of Dr. Phil or Oprah Winfrey for several minutes — believe me, no drug compares to the feeling of the lofty vanity you’re going to sense after watching this farce.

The Americans have never surprised me. They are very funny, and watching them is like watching a circus show — but they do not surprise. The era of the 60s and the 70s was when the last of the real Americans disappeared from the world — those patriots imbued with ideals, who fought Nixon’s capitalist bulldozers aggressively in order to get out of Vietnam. They vacated their space to a sated, fatty, superficial people who, instead of releasing their belts and energetically striking any illness in society, release the belt because their bellies are exploding with mountains of fat, both physical and mental, wrapping the gray cells of their brains in layers of shallowness.

The American people have never been the par excellence example of in-depth thinking for the long term. Present in front of him the new creation from Martha Stewart’s kitchen and he will hurry to make a call to order. Because he is like this. Addicted to instant enjoyments, to sparkling temptations — and afterwards, when he gets the Visa bill, he doesn’t understand why he is on the threshold of bankruptcy.


What America has done yesterday, pushing the power of Obama aside, is the equivalent of ordering a huge crane for rescue workers and firefighters to hitch the plump, grunting, heavy American body with straps to a forklift platform, to put an oxygen mask on his face and try to release him from the dark and smelly room where he was staying all alone for two years, on the 28th floor of a skyscraper. And here, the sunlight bursts forth. Here is a light breeze invading his dusky dwelling, here is the face of a brave fireman Tommy, smiling to him with shining teeth and stretching his hand out to help.

American citizens, you proved that the time has come to take yourselves into your hands and to start the Obama diet. And I promise you, in two years, you’ll be looking completely different. Lightweight, well-built and above all — you’ll start a new life.
Last edited by svinayak on 17 Nov 2010 22:12, edited 2 times in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23317
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Pres. Obama's visit.

Postby chetak » 17 Nov 2010 22:01

PrasadZ wrote:"Khamenei urges Muslims to 'help' Kashmir"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

Looks like a first !
Khamenei, himself, has never mentioned the K word before. Blowback from alignment with the US?



We are romantic fools.

iran has always supported the pakis against India over kashmir.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, souravB and 30 guests