India-US Strategic News and Discussion

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 20 Jun 2012 04:53

so the only way to goad india into a war is to show the indian public that india is prepared -- USA should supply us free mil hardware

well then, india refuses to sign various trap agreements and may actually win the war. what to do? what to do?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Jun 2012 05:54

Ex-Rutgers student won't be deported
http://news.yahoo.com/immigration-ex-ru ... 24130.html

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — A former Rutgers University student convicted of using a webcam to spy on his gay roommate will not be deported to his native India, federal immigration authorities said Monday.Twenty-year-old Dharun Ravi is due to be released from the Middlesex County Jail on Tuesday after serving 20 days of a 30-day jail sentence.e was convicted this year of 15 criminal counts, including bias intimidation and invasion of privacy, for using a webcam to see his roommate kissing another man in September 2010. Days later, the roommate, Tyler Clementi, threw himself to his death off the George Washington Bridge.The issue of deportation has hung over the case.Ravi was born in India, lived there until he was 5 years old and remains a citizen, though he is in the United States legally.Foreign citizens convicted of crimes here can face deportation — usually after they complete their prison or jail terms.Last year, Ravi rejected a plea deal under which prosecutors would have sought to protect him from being deported.Ravi could have received up to 10 years in prison. His supporters argued for leniency in part to make it less likely that he would be deported. Experts say the proceedings are usually initiated against those who are incarcerated for a year or more.Last month, the second man in the streamed video — identified in court only by the initials M.B. — said through a lawyer that he was willing to write a letter on Ravi's behalf opposing deportation.In a statement released Monday, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement spokesman Ross Feinstein said Ravi would not face deportation because of his criminal record.The webcam case is his first brush with the law.He voluntarily reported to jail on May 31 though he could have remained free while the case is on appeal.Prosecutors have asked an appeals court to give him a longer sentence. Ravi is arguing to have his conviction overturned.
His jail time is reduced by 10 days because of a state law that allows shorter sentences for good behavior and working.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 11:22

Sagar G wrote:
No major attacks for how long if the safe havens of jihadis are intact ??? They know this very well that's why we see unkils breakdown in relationship with pukistan not beacause of any love for India but because of this very fact that one day these very jihadis will strike american mainland and the american public will go for their leaders heads. Media management is also done in India as well but have we become brainwashed or blind to what is apparent ?? No, I haven't and I don't see anyone becoming such, same is true for american public as well, you can fool your country to a certain limit only howsoever good is one's media management, can't get them to believe that they have won the af-pak war and hence safe from any terrorist attacks since they are now on indo pak border.

that's the price they are willing to pay to pull out and they made promises to win elections. One of those promises were troop pull out. You see the benefit of them staying there but the average American doesn't and they are sick of the war. Look at the statements from Obama from day 1.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 11:30

Yes, but they did not expect it. They had expected that India is full of chankian-theorists who would send dossiers. That is why it caused Musharraf to send Nawaz Sharif to Washington. Unlike Iran-Iraq war, it did not last 8 years. Why not?
[\quote]
I answered this one already - India saw through the plan and we did not want to cross LoC. they also expected more help, but India was simply defending territory not entering theirs. The plan worked and also the Kashmiris didn't rise up. They thought kashmiri's would help them win. Plan failed and it was futile.

Obviously they didn't expect it because they thought 26/11 was big enough for them to evoke a reaction.

Due to Indian Navy's blockade they had oil for a few weeks. Why didn't their friends ensure their "survival" by helping them?

Maybe one of the reasons but of their friends had been loyal that wouldn't have been so great. But again look at the situation - India wasn't the aggressor. In 26/11 we would have invaded and made to look like we are the aggressor.

Northern Light Infantry was pretty disheartened after the war. Maybe they should have thought that they are doing it for "the greater good of their country"?

[/quote]Disheartened because they were losing. Are you saying they stopped fighting before the ceasefire against the orders of TSPA higher ups? Because that's what your statement implies

Have you noticed that the TSPA are trying to make India look like the aggressor recently?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Jun 2012 17:11

shyamd wrote:that's the price they are willing to pay to pull out and they made promises to win elections. One of those promises were troop pull out. You see the benefit of them staying there but the average American doesn't and they are sick of the war.

Americans are their to serve their own interests and I don't look up to America for defending India's interest, India has to do that on it's own come whoever doesn't like it. All these theories of foreign forces in Indian land is BS served to scare Indian junta so that the government can hide it's inactions behind it, I don't buy it. Also unkil has already stated that their forces will remain in Afghanistan till 2024 so please explain when has America shown willingness to face terrorist attack on their land.

shyamd wrote:Look at the statements from Obama from day 1.

Also look at his actions as well from day one and also look at the current scenario between them and their munna. American forces cant leave entirely till jihadi safe havens are destroyed, I have already mentioned why they can't do so. It's time that India starts doing targeted assassinations and strike jihadi camps to serve it's interests let 3.5 friends or anyone be against it, Americans or any of it's poodle state doesn't have the balls to pick up a fight with India and that too a military one.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Jun 2012 17:21

shyamd wrote:Maybe one of the reasons but of their friends had been loyal that wouldn't have been so great. But again look at the situation - India wasn't the aggressor.

So what is the moral of the story....that they have "friends" who ditch them as and when they wish, so why are you so scared of their so called "friends" ???

shyamd wrote:In 26/11 we would have invaded and made to look like we are the aggressor.

What "invasion", the talk going around then was to carry out precision air strikes on terrorist camps and then fight it out if they retaliated. Also invasion occurs on foreign land, P.O.K. is no foreign land it's them who have invaded.

shyamd wrote:Have you noticed that the TSPA are trying to make India look like the aggressor recently?

And which country is buying this ???

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 18:04

Sagar G wrote: Americans are their to serve their own interests and I don't look up to America for defending India's interest, India has to do that on it's own come whoever doesn't like it. All these theories of foreign forces in Indian land is BS served to scare Indian junta so that the government can hide it's inactions behind it, I don't buy it. Also unkil has already stated that their forces will remain in Afghanistan till 2024 so please explain when has America shown willingness to face terrorist attack on their land.

No one is asking US to defend our interests, they are asking India to defend their interests by crook.
How many forces will they keep? Just SpecOps, so nothing frontline - hardly any troops on the streets. Casualty levels will be low as numbers on the ground will be a lot less.

Also look at his actions as well from day one and also look at the current scenario between them and their munna. American forces cant leave entirely till jihadi safe havens are destroyed, I have already mentioned why they can't do so. It's time that India starts doing targeted assassinations and strike jihadi camps to serve it's interests let 3.5 friends or anyone be against it, Americans or any of it's poodle state doesn't have the balls to pick up a fight with India and that too a military one.

Yes covert strikes are the best option given the scenario. But escalation in Afghanistan is an equally good option - which is what they are doing, as it takes the war away from our border and keeps J&K safe, our economy growing and keeps TSPA focus in the north. Their defence will become precarious in the event and it will be harder for them in the future as they'll have to pay for new a/c, tanks, men for the northern border. They tried to raise the FC to look after the northern border but that turned out to be a big failure. So that border is sitting largely unprotected - by their own admission.

Problem with bombing campaign was that there is no point spending a few hundred thousand bucks to hit a few tents with jihadi's in.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Jun 2012 18:13

^^^ Rudradev-ji? Why did you do this?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 18:18

Sagar G wrote: So what is the moral of the story....that they have "friends" who ditch them as and when they wish, so why are you so scared of their so called "friends" ???

Yes but are you willing to stake a bet on it backed up by indian lives? And keep in mind they were making us out as the agressor - as we would have invaded/launched strikes. They were waiting for us

What "invasion", the talk going around then was to carry out precision air strikes on terrorist camps and then fight it out if they retaliated. Also invasion occurs on foreign land, P.O.K. is no foreign land it's them who have invaded.

Plan was for SF commando raids, preparations were made. Some air strikes.

And which country is buying this ???

What do you think would have happened? TSP were making out that if India launched attacks, they would have responded - which would have made india the aggressor firing the first shot and would have claimed 26/11 was done by Indians/no evidence yada yada.

What do nations do when faced with such attack ? Usually say IA killed innocent civilians or hit TSPA , so TSPA is defending itself - again making themself out as the victim, some would have agreed - lets face it we Indians don't really have "all weather allies". Even today US wants a relationship with TSP despite the number of US soldiers that have died

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 18:51

>> I answered this one already

You *think* that you have answered the question. You never realize when you slip from one third-rate chankian theory to another.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 19:05

Aahh - rhetoric and insults - usually the sign of someone who can't accept they are wrong. Well lets leave it at that then.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 19:21

shyamd wrote:Aahh - rhetoric and insults - usually the sign of someone who can't accept they are wrong. Well lets leave it at that then.

Yeah, right! I am still trying to understand why 1965 and 1971 wars did not last 8 years.

I have still not understood how "foreigners" would come to J&K.

It has not been explained how America would be able to pull out from Afghanistan during a short India-Pak war.

Instead of answering these questions, you have started explaining the importance of not crossing the LoC.

Now, have you understood how you slip from one third-rate theory to another?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 20 Jun 2012 19:38

LoC is not some divine mandate. it is a burden that Indian has taken up. the belief was that it would mollify the Pakis. but hasn't happened since 1948. I've said this before. whoever takes the bluff and crosses LoC permanently, will radically change the game. if India doesn't call the bluff, eventually, Pakis and their supporting backers will call it and crossover. the Brit imposed LoC will collapse into oblivion, when that happens. so we need to watch from the Anglo angle. if they're confident of once again meddling, they might do it. what India needs is an understanding that LoC is a fake demarcation and has no meaning. if we call the bluff and show its meaningless, we will have effectively changed the rules of the game.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jun 2012 19:40

In India, we see ghosts everywhere and are shackled by shadows.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 20 Jun 2012 20:07

shyamd wrote:Yes but are you willing to stake a bet on it backed up by indian lives? And keep in mind they were making us out as the agressor - as we would have invaded/launched strikes. They were waiting for us

There were a lot of other things.

Truth is that we do not have the capability to account for all the contingencies. Until then, we're trying not to spend anything rashly.

China is a resource hog. It's expanding at the cost of the P5 and there's going to be trouble within. It is not our power tussle and nor is it our war. If the US wants to dance in the indian ocean with the chinese then let them do it through srilanka and bangladesh.

A showdown between the chinese and the US is only possible if the chinese somehow get a share of the resources in the middle-east.

Just wait and watch. Unkil will do as he pleases unless someone brings the war to continental united states.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 20:27

shyamd wrote:But again look at the situation - India wasn't the aggressor. In 26/11 we would have invaded and made to look like we are the aggressor.

Pakis would have said that India was the aggressor. So what? They have been saying all kinds of things in last 60+ years. Why should we care for what they say? How would it change things?

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 20 Jun 2012 20:30

Not sure how this one ties into the Immigration Buzz word floating around for the 2012 elections but this was in WSJ on the 18th.

The Pew report says those trends should help propel the growth of the Asian population in the U.S. to 41 million in 2050, more than double its current size.
That rise can help the country forge ties with fast-growing economies such as China and India, says Conrad Lee, the first minority mayor of Bellevue, Wash. Mr. Lee said one of his goals is to "promote relationship-building with China, India and Korea" through the growing numbers of Asian immigrants who have settled in the city of 130,000 outside Seattle. Asians, who account for 28% of Bellevue's population, are in close contact with friends and relatives back home, he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 07050.html

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 20:50

abhishek_sharma wrote: Yeah, right! I am still trying to understand why 1965 and 1971 wars did not last 8 years.

Totally different scenario to today and in 1971, TSP was losing - and to prevent it from going any further - US threatened to nuke us. Their friends bailed them out in effect.

I have still not understood how "foreigners" would come to J&K.

Refer to UN mandate to ensure peace. US has already offered joint operations in J&K more recently and they want to impose solutions on us.

It has not been explained how America would be able to pull out from Afghanistan during a short India-Pak war.

Eh? Its common sense that if they are not getting attacked - then they will declare and leave and leave a force behind - SpecOps that will sit in their bases and act as and when necessary. Again assuming that those safe havens are still in AfPak and not busy in PoK - which we have seen when we have arrested/killed foreign terrorists.

Instead of answering these questions, you have started explaining the importance of not crossing the LoC.

Lol! Jumping from one topic to another and confusing yourself - I said that clearly in the context of Kargil war and why the Kargil war ended - their plans failed because we didn't cross the LoC and it was apparent when ABV ordered armed forces not to cross LoC.

Now, have you understood how you slip from one third-rate theory to another?

Nope.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Jun 2012 20:58

All, before we get sidetracked any further I would request you to consider one simple logical proposition.

Please consider the following Statements A and B.

Statement A: MMS government is useless when dealing with Pakistan; it is too cowardly to respond forcefully to terrorist attacks by Pakistan; it is always looking for excuses to avoid a forceful response against Pakistan; it is a WKK regime which wants to appease Pakistan at the cost of Indian interests.

Statement B: 26/11 was part of a plan to provoke an Indian military response against Pakistan, and subsequently remove Indian control of J&K by military intervention, in order to radically change the political environment for US/NATO in the region.

Statement A may be true or false or partially true.

Statement B may be true or false or partially true.

BUT

If Statement B is true or partially true, does it necessarily make Statement A false?

If Statement A is true or partially true, does it necessarily make Statement B false?

Can Statement A and B both be true or partially true at the same time?

Think about it. It is better to argue for or against Statement A OR Statement B individually, on the specific merits or demerits of the particular statement, without bringing in one's opinion regarding the other statement. Otherwise we are muddying our analysis before it even begins.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2012 21:04

Statement C: Indian military was unprepared to provide a quick response* and the political leaders accepted the label of cowards as it fit in with their objectives of statement A.

* There were many reasons and the whole Indian Army thread is there for it. At best it was a combination of both political and military laxity after 2002 Parakram.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 21:05

shyamd wrote: Totally different scenario to today and in 1971, TSP was losing - and to prevent it from going any further - US threatened to nuke us. Their friends bailed them out in effect.

Why did Pakis surrender? They could have fought for "8 years"? Their friends "bailed them out in effect" such that they lost 50% of their country in 2 weeks. With friends like these ...

And scenarios are "different" when they don't support your conclusions. Due to some strange reason, Iran-Iraq war is very relevant for predicting the dynamics of India-Pak wars.

Refer to UN mandate to ensure peace. US has already offered joint operations in J&K more recently and they want to impose solutions on us.

Are we going to accept what they are offering? Can they force it? If no, why do you bring up this issue?

Eh? Its common sense that if they are not getting attacked - then they will declare and leave and leave a force behind

It is ironic that you mention "common sense". If you use common sense you will understand it is not possible for America to ship out hundreds of thousands of troops in 2-3 months. And those attacks will resume when India-Pak war ends. (I hate to repeat the same points again and again.)

Use common sense more often.

their plans failed because we didn't cross the LoC and it was apparent when ABV ordered armed forces not to cross LoC.

This is how people glorify dhimmi strategies. Their plans failed because instead of sending dossiers, we used force to throw them out. <-- Read the last line again.

Now, have you understood how you slip from one third-rate theory to another?

>> Nope.

I understand your limitations.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 21:45

I understand your limitations? Using insults isnt how I wish to debate. So excuse me.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 21:46

Thanks. I was not enjoying this debate either.

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 20 Jun 2012 21:57

Pew: Asian Americans more liberal than locals

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 20 Jun 2012 22:30

KLNMurthy wrote:The idea that 26/11 provocation was meant to goad India into a war for the shared benefit of TSP and US makes sense if we keep in mind that pakis are tactically brilliant only and US wars are marked by short-term thinking, which is another name for tactical brilliance.

Lesson of Rubiya Sayeed and IC 814 is that Indian politicos as well as public would not like to sacrifice near and dear ones' lives if at all possible. Lesson of 26/11 is that public will forgive loss of life due to poor preparation and training. Lesson of Parakram is that Indian business people don't like to jeopardize profit and growth.

These lessons have been learned and internalized by GOI as well as TSP and US.

1965 war was conducted to get the Arab countries off the India Rupee. This was important because when the 1973 Arab Israeli war happened, Arabs quadrupled oil prices, which created an artificial demand for USD. If the Arab countries had been conducting their international trade and forex reserves in INR, then all of that benefit would have accrued to India. 1965 destabilized the Indian economy and currency, and showed Arabs that they needed to jump on to a stronger currency. That the Soviets were in on the plan and were co-collaborators is shown by the fact that they murdered Shastriji, who was unwilling to give even an inch to Paki demands for an 'honourable' surrender. After all, the Soviets were the largest exporters of oil.

IC 814 was designed to demoralize the Indian/Hindu population, who had just elected a (nominally) Hindu nationalist government.

26/11 was not directed against any India policy (or lack of policy). It was designed to curb the manouvering space for the then President-elect Obama. It was conducted by Bush policy loyalists who wanted US to stay engaged in Afghanistan. Obama had pledged to get the US troops home, for which he needed to cut a deal with Pakis, for which he needed to give them something they really wanted (Kashmir, or some semblance of 'progress' on Kashmir). For which he had to sell the idea to Indian population (not to GOI, because it was headed by the American loyalist Manmohan Singh). 26/11 destroyed any hope of selling this idea to the Indian public.

PS:

Obama is still getting out of Afghanistan. But the difference now is that he has realized the nature of the Pakistani beast (army), so India is not being pressurized into giving in to Paki demands.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 22:33

^^ What is the likelihoods of these theories?

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 20 Jun 2012 22:41

abhishek_sharma wrote:Yes, but they did not expect it. They had expected that India is full of chankian-theorists who would send dossiers. That is why it caused Musharraf to send Nawaz Sharif to Washington. Unlike Iran-Iraq war, it did not last 8 years. Why not?

Kargil intrusion was meant to blockade the (then) only supply route into Kashmir. There is another route into Kashmir through Ladakh, but as that time it was not usable in winter. After the war, GOI made it all weather road in double quick time. If the pakis had managed to lodge themselves in Kargil heights, it would have been very difficult to maintain IA ops in Kashmir Valley.

Due to Indian Navy's blockade they had oil for a few weeks. Why didn't their friends ensure their "survival" by helping them?

IA had cleared over 90% of the peaks when Billy Boy invited Nawaz Sharif and 'ordered' him to withdraw the PA from Kargil.
No, the pakis withdrew when the US realized that IA had beaten PA black and blue, and would need a face saving exit from Kargil. So Nawaz Sharif was made a fall guy for the incompetence of the pakistani general class. After that everybody, including the jihadis, went to town screeching that 'if not for Nawaz, we would have won in Kargil'.

Yes, we must give full credit to Vajpayeeji for not crossing the LOC. This was the wildcard that nobody had prepared for.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 22:44

>> Yes, we must give full credit to Vajpayeeji for not crossing the LOC.

What would have happened if we had crossed the LOC?

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 20 Jun 2012 22:48

abhishek_sharma wrote:^^ What is the likelihoods of these theories?

100%.

The planning of the 1965 war was written in a book called "The Crisis Game" by Sidney Giffin (before the war, of course). Even the dates given in the book were the same, only year was changed from 1965 to 1966.

LBS's death in USSR has never been resolved.

The 1973 war was planned between Kissinger, Israelis, and Egyptians. Kissinger is a protege of the Rockefeller clan, who (surprise surprise) made their fortunes in the Standard Oil Company (now called Exxon-Mobil). They were one of the biggest beneficiaries of the 1973 war.

IC 814: Just see the result.

26/11: smoking gun in this case is called - David Coleman Headley. Why do you think the Americans won't let this man be interrogated by Indian authorities?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 22:53

^^ There are other ways to explain these events. Abduction is not a sound strategy.

American hands are not clean in 26/11. But if you want to infer that it was done to ensure that US stays engaged in Afghanistan then you should provide more evidence. Otherwise it is just one of many possibilities.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 20 Jun 2012 22:55

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> Yes, we must give full credit to Vajpayeeji for not crossing the LOC.

What would have happened if we had crossed the LOC?

Well the plan was if there is any escalation of conflict that threatens to go nuclear, the US and other western countries (UK) would put enormous pressure on India and pakistan to negotiate a peace settlement. The bogey of a 'nuclear holocaust' would be raised to put us under pressure.

Of course, in any 'peace' settlement pakistan would get to keep the Kargil, and it would become a permanent sore on the supply line to Kashmir.

US made the mistake of thinking that since India is being ruled by hot blooded Hindu Nationalists (people who can even destroy mosques with international news channels recording it!), it would definitely overreact when presented an opportunity to teach pakistan a lesson.

By refusing to cross LOC, ABV destroyed all hopes of international intervention. In fact, India won kudos for not escalating and pakistan got justifiably painted as the aggressor.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 20 Jun 2012 22:56

>>Abduction is not a sound strategy.

What abduction?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 23:01

abhischekcc wrote: In fact, India won kudos for not escalating and pakistan got justifiably painted as the aggressor.

Why should we care for "kudos" given by self-appointed leaders of the world?

Not crossing the LoC surely increased Indian casualties. It is not less important than appreciation shown by biased observers.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 20 Jun 2012 23:20

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> Yes, we must give full credit to Vajpayeeji for not crossing the LOC.

What would have happened if we had crossed the LOC?

Do you forget the huge international outry that South Asia is the world's most dangerous spot and it is going to be a nuclear flash point? Had India crossed LOC, they would have used threat of nuclear war to initiate denuke-India sanctions from UN and keeping an international peace force in Kashmir border.

It is easy to say that India would not care about UN sanctions, but keep in mind that India doesn't have veto power and it would be really tough to deal with it when they put financial and trade sanctions till India agrees to their conditions. It can slowly cripple the economy like it did in Iran.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 23:25

paramu wrote: Do you forget the huge international outry that South Asia is the world's most dangerous spot and it is going to be a nuclear flash point? Had India crossed LOC, they would have used threat of nuclear war to initiate denuke-India sanctions from UN and keeping an international peace force in Kashmir border.

Kashmir problem has been going on since 1947. Why haven't they done so yet? Is there an international peace force in J&K these days?

It is easy to say that India would not care about UN sanctions, but keep in mind that India doesn't have veto power and it would be really tough to deal with it when they put financial and trade sanctions till India agrees to their conditions. It can slowly cripple the economy like it did in Iran.

Actually, India has been under all kinds of sanctions since 1974. Many new sanctions were imposed after 1998 nuclear tests. As far as I can see, the economy is doing just fine. It is ironic because US companies pressured their government to remove some sanctions.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Jun 2012 23:40

I am sorry, this entire discussion is payajama shivering of the highest order. In 71, the enterprise would not bother us, and now this little trivia of international intervention is a issue?

Lest we forget, there are already foreign troops in PoK, the Chinese. So if all this tamasha was that foreign troops dont get in, hey its all been for nothing. Also there was and is nothing stopping the Wh******* Paki's from leasing out PoK to others even earlier to one of their 3 1/2 friends?

Please folks this really getting ridiculous.

During Kargil we did not cross LoC for a simple reason -- it was possible to contain and win the war on our terms in the needed time frame -- had things did not work out, we would have crossed the LoC and the IB and Indus and everything -- each of those would have bought with it, more sacrifices.

However as it turned out, we were quite successful in handling the situation, at possibly the least possible cost that we could have paid in that situation.

============================================

This is all quite different from doing nothing at all, letting all the culprits go scot free and start rounding up Indians of the right background to distract attention from the fact that the govt was not doing anything had no intention of doing anything.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 20 Jun 2012 23:43

Most of the dangerous anti-India UN sanctions were vetoed by Soviet Union. We can't count on that everytime.

BTW, US MNCs are extension of the establishment. Also don't forget the moment when Indian corporations were pressing GoI against operation parakram.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2012 23:49

Abhishekcc, There was an op-ed by K.P. Nayar in Telegraph stating that ABV asked for options and crossing the IB was the prime one like in 1965 and 1971. He replied after the hostilities are over there will be ceasefire with both parties occupying what they got in Kashmir. He was not ready to allow the TSP to occupy the Kargil heights.

Also don't forget he was running a caretaker govt that got voted out by one vote: Swamy and Jaya had a hand in that. I still would like to have both those people brain mapped for that. However am afraid will find it empty.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 23:51

paramu wrote:Most of the dangerous anti-India UN sanctions were vetoed by Soviet Union. We can't count on that everytime.

Why not? Relations with US and Russia are a zero-sum game. One of them will be with us.

BTW, US MNCs are extension of the establishment.

So why were they asking their govt to lift sanctions?

Also don't forget the moment when Indian corporations were pressing GoI against operation parakram.

This is quite different from the topic of sanctions we were discussing.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 21 Jun 2012 00:12

abhishek_sharma wrote:Why not? Relations with US and Russia are a zero-sum game. One of them will be with us.

This is a wrong assumption. If so, Russia would have vetoed Gaddafi sanctions. Once the image that south asia is a nuclear flash point is well established through the media, Russia would just abstain from the UN vote.

BTW, US MNCs are extension of the establishment.
So why were they asking their govt to lift sanctions?

Also don't forget the moment when Indian corporations were pressing GoI against operation parakram.
This is quite different from the topic of sanctions we were discussing.

They are connected. It was US MNCs who were asking Infosys to pressurise GoI. India did not violate any international law it signed by testing nukes and so global support for sanction was not strong. But the moment it was highlighted as a nuclear flash point, the scenareo was going to be different. Since they figure out that sanctions were not going to be effective, using MNCs to get leverage over Indian corporation was a better alternative that time.