India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

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.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby RoyG » 02 Jul 2018 06:15

Kashi wrote:{Deleted}

Parasu wrote:Very productive for Pakis considering it has fought India to a standstill being 5,6 times smaller.


Ah yes, 1971 was a standstill, Siachen was a standstill, Kargil was a standstill. If those were standstills, wonder what is Cuba or for that matter Iraq and Afghanistan..

And of course, Pakistan is a quintessential success story in ALL socio-economic indices.

Parasu wrote:They shafted dear Russia.


After shafting your dear Russia, China went on to shaft dear Unkil (EU and Japan as well) and it continues till date with Unkil happily supplying the lube. If we must take a leaf from Cheeni playbook, it should be this.

I am surprised at the attitude that just because we supposedly GUBOed to the Soviets/Russians in the past we should now GUBO to Unkil since it will be more productive. I would rather not GUBO at all. Ack thoo only.


India is going to coast through all the changes taking place.

It's a family based society so it has a lot of capability to adjust.

At the end of the day, India just wants to carve out its niche and keep its people happy.

It really doesn't strive for super power status in the same way that the West does.

It's obvious to everyone so what's all the hullabaloo about?

We're Jackals not tigers.

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2237
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Rony » 02 Jul 2018 10:30

RoyG wrote: We're Jackals not tigers.


Actually we are Elephants neither Jackals nor Tigers. We are big, powerful but not aggressive and does not know our own strength.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63368
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Singha » 02 Jul 2018 12:27

https://news.usni.org/2018/06/26/rim-of ... ticipation

rimpac has started. ins sahyadri is in it. some good pics should come.

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Y. Kanan » 02 Jul 2018 13:33

Yagnasri wrote:Our economic growth was/is not that much linked to the US or any nation. It is more related to our own internal policies. True that a easy market access to a large economy like that of US is helpful. But may not be a game changer. Indian economy is not export-dependent like that of China. We have large consumption internally. So let us work on our economy and as we grow we will see our capabilities in the world grow.


Absolutely agree. No real economy is based on exports; we have a tendency to overstate foreign investment and exports while ignoring the less exciting but far more important internal economy (which is vastly bigger in scale, actually). The overwhelmingly vast majority of Indian money getting earned and spent is moving around inside our own country, changing hands from one Indian to another. We are doing most of our business with each other. This is the bedrock of any nation's economy and the true barometer of its standard of the living, not how much rice and t-shirts we're exporting, or how many call centers we have. That stuff is all just a drop in the bucket.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1057
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby dinesha » 02 Jul 2018 15:18

The Indian-American underachiever : America needs to invest more in its partnership with the world’s biggest democracy
https://www.economist.com/united-states ... rsc=dg%7Ce

Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1095
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Kati » 02 Jul 2018 16:58


RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby RoyG » 02 Jul 2018 18:40

Rony wrote:
RoyG wrote: We're Jackals not tigers.


Actually we are Elephants neither Jackals nor Tigers. We are big, powerful but not aggressive and does not know our own strength.


Had we been an elephant we would have invaded all our neighbors in haste. The way we've always operated is controlling just the subcontinent and pacifying everyone beyond that with our philosophy. We'll never be like the West or ME. We just want to survive and thrive with our traditions, philosophy, and family structure.

Jackals are adaptable in this way. They survive to this day in greater numbers than the tiger.

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Parasu » 04 Jul 2018 04:03

Kashi wrote:Ah yes. talk of tangents. Suddenly the Indo-US thread has gone off into slums and garbage in Indian cities. What next, we should not have a space programme because- slums and garbage and poverty and lack of toilets? Now where have we read these arguments before???

Before it went into economics, the thread first went into serious meaningless one-liners by some when other posters countered roos-lovers prescription of unabashed hatred for US with logic.
India needs to take care of its interests. And yes, economic upliftment of the long suffering masses must be one of the prime goals of Indian foreign policy. Getting sanctions slapped on ourselves by US because we should hate US because US is evil is poor argument. If at all, you tried to make one anywhere.

Very productive for Pakis considering it has fought India to a standstill being 5,6 times smaller.
--- Ah yes, 1971 was a standstill, Siachen was a standstill, Kargil was a standstill. If those were standstills, wonder what is Cuba or for that matter Iraq and Afghanistan..
And of course, Pakistan is a quintessential success story in ALL socio-economic indices.

1971 was Pakistan's internal war. If you think Kargil and Siachen are victories, you have rather low bar. Yes, Cuba is a standstill. And yes, US lost in Iraq.
Pakistan is a failed state because it has been trying to fight off a much larger India with less resources.
Roos-lovers suggest that we do something similar and get into fight with US with 1/10th its economy and 1/20th its alliance network. In short, we must do our own beda gark so that we can indulge in chest thumping in the name of strategic autonomy and independent foreign policy.

They shafted dear Russia.
----After shafting your dear Russia, China went on to shaft dear Unkil (EU and Japan as well) and it continues till date with Unkil happily supplying the lube. If we must take a leaf from Cheeni playbook, it should be this.

They have recently started shafting US and Japan after making full use of US and japanese investment to build up economic strength. So what is the Indian GDP compared to US and Chinese GDPs, pray tell.

I am surprised at the attitude that just because we supposedly GUBOed to the Soviets/Russians in the past we should now GUBO to Unkil since it will be more productive. I would rather not GUBO at all. Ack thoo only.

When you know only two things - GUBO and not to GUBO, then there isnt much cerebral capacity to discuss. Besides, the argument to begin with was made to counter roos-lovers prescription of unlimited hatred for US.
You needlessly jumped in to waste other people`s time, wrongly assuming that anyone was prescribing GUBOing to anyone. You sure have internalised BRF acronyms. I will give you that.
But not much else.

Enjoy.
Ta

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11922
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Suraj » 04 Jul 2018 04:17

Mod Note:

Thread has been cleaned up.

CRamS, Neshant: you're both on notice.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4012
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby hanumadu » 04 Jul 2018 07:25

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/us-softens-demand-that-countries-stop-all-iran-oil-imports/articleshow/64836440.cms

“We are prepared to work with countries that are reducing their imports on a case-by-case basis,” said Brian Hook, the department’s director of policy and planning.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1057
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby dinesha » 07 Jul 2018 13:49

Mattis writes to Nirmala Sitharaman to clear the air on 2+2
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 891711.cms
Instead, Mattis confirmed his plans to travel to India in early September, which is now likely to be the occasion when the Indo-US 2+2 dialogue will be held.

ET has reliably gathered that soon after Mattis’s letter, the US formally moved a proposal to hold the 2+2 dialogue in India in early September. The necessary coordination between the State Department and Pentagon on this count has already begun, added sources.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ashish raval » 11 Jul 2018 03:25

chetak wrote:
ashish raval wrote:Expect nil participation from Europe including UK on Iran war. They want to crumble the country under economic sanctions first with little appetite of war and then stage a colour revolution. Iran has few friends in middle East but it will certainly take years before they achieve anything in Iran and being launch pad for going to Europe it will create huge migration crisis for Europe by potentially opening up door all the way from pork, Afghan through Iran to Europe. It will be a nightmare for anyone attacking Persia as Shia dies on the land he is standing defending it like a sardar, but never leaves the battlefield, if any doubts look at how houtis fought army 100 times superior with sheer grit in Yemen.



All this "superior" fighter nonsense is intolerable BS.

Everyone fights, everyone retreats and everyone dies depending on the circumstances.

No immortals anywhere, so don't try to perpetuate some sort of shia superiority crap.

persian?? really??

Didn't the pakis discover, to their horror, that even banias can fight?? and fight better than them??

Didn't the "superior" sunnis surrender abjectly to the very same banias in beediland??

Haven't they had their porki asses handed to them everytime they tangled with Hindu banias on the battle field??


Who is Bania in Indian Army? Or you are theorising Bania as Indians? If you are relating bd's to Bania's then common, Pukes lost because of two front war with India coupled with Bd support. It was not won by bd alone, they could not have.

Indian army has disproportionate proportion from Indian martial races from all over India so Jats, Sikhs, Maratha, Rajputs and from Southern India. Your so called superior technology is not even a tiny match to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan if you think theory of martial races is bs. Why don't you ask any general in Afghanistan on how many bullets of 5.56 or 7.62 caliber is required to make sure a Taliban is dead? Whatever they take it before fighting but they sustain on average 10 rounds of 7.62 and 16-20 rounds of 5.56 caliber body shots before death. There are not many except hardened soldiers and special forces who can sustain that. So I think martial races theory is not complete BS, perhaps less relevant but not completely irrelevant even in modern day.

From what I have heard about the little history of the middle East, Shia fighters were normally only defeated by Sunnis in most battles due overwhelming numerical superiority of 3-4x.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6211
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nachiket » 11 Jul 2018 03:41

ashish raval wrote:Indian army has disproportionate proportion from Indian martial races from all over India so Jats, Sikhs, Maratha, Rajputs and from Southern India. Your so called superior technology is not even a tiny match to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan if you think theory of martial races is bs. Why don't you ask any general in Afghanistan on how many bullets of 5.56 or 7.62 caliber is required to make sure a Taliban is dead? Whatever they take it before fighting but they sustain on average 10 rounds of 7.62 and 16-20 rounds of 5.56 caliber body shots before death. There are not many except hardened soldiers and special forces who can sustain that. So I think martial races theory is not complete BS, perhaps less relevant but not completely irrelevant even in modern day.

From what I have heard about the little history of the middle East, Shia fighters were normally only defeated by Sunnis in most battles due overwhelming numerical superiority of 3-4x.

Please don't bring the martial race theory nonsense into this thread. It was started by the Brits who themselves gave away the real motivations behind it when they removed erstwhile "martial races" from the list after the 1857 war to make sure they recruit only those who remained loyal to them. Somehow they suddenly stopped being martial one fine day.

Martial race theory is exactly what led to Ayub Khan's infamous "1 pakistani is equal to 10 Hindus" declaration that blew up in his face in 1965. I can't believe we have to explain this to an Indian, half a century later, on BRF no less.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17658
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chetak » 11 Jul 2018 06:13

ashish raval wrote:
chetak wrote:

All this "superior" fighter nonsense is intolerable BS.

Everyone fights, everyone retreats and everyone dies depending on the circumstances.

No immortals anywhere, so don't try to perpetuate some sort of shia superiority crap.

persian?? really??

Didn't the pakis discover, to their horror, that even banias can fight?? and fight better than them??

Didn't the "superior" sunnis surrender abjectly to the very same banias in beediland??

Haven't they had their porki asses handed to them everytime they tangled with Hindu banias on the battle field??


Who is Bania in Indian Army? Or you are theorising Bania as Indians? If you are relating bd's to Bania's then common, Pukes lost because of two front war with India coupled with Bd support. It was not won by bd alone, they could not have.

Indian army has disproportionate proportion from Indian martial races from all over India so Jats, Sikhs, Maratha, Rajputs and from Southern India. Your so called superior technology is not even a tiny match to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan if you think theory of martial races is bs. Why don't you ask any general in Afghanistan on how many bullets of 5.56 or 7.62 caliber is required to make sure a Taliban is dead? Whatever they take it before fighting but they sustain on average 10 rounds of 7.62 and 16-20 rounds of 5.56 caliber body shots before death. There are not many except hardened soldiers and special forces who can sustain that. So I think martial races theory is not complete BS, perhaps less relevant but not completely irrelevant even in modern day.

From what I have heard about the little history of the middle East, Shia fighters were normally only defeated by Sunnis in most battles due overwhelming numerical superiority of 3-4x.


That the IA is an Army of banias who will not fight is a very wishful pakjabi fantasy and one that has proved them consistently wrong.

No Indian thinks that of his Army.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3006
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Kashi » 11 Jul 2018 06:21

I see that the martial race theory is alive an well in some quarters at least.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7841
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Pratyush » 11 Jul 2018 06:28

What does the last set of posts have to do with this thread.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ashish raval » 11 Jul 2018 11:24

chetak wrote:
ashish raval wrote:
Who is Bania in Indian Army? Or you are theorising Bania as Indians? If you are relating bd's to Bania's then common, Pukes lost because of two front war with India coupled with Bd support. It was not won by bd alone, they could not have.

Indian army has disproportionate proportion from Indian martial races from all over India so Jats, Sikhs, Maratha, Rajputs and from Southern India. Your so called superior technology is not even a tiny match to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan if you think theory of martial races is bs. Why don't you ask any general in Afghanistan on how many bullets of 5.56 or 7.62 caliber is required to make sure a Taliban is dead? Whatever they take it before fighting but they sustain on average 10 rounds of 7.62 and 16-20 rounds of 5.56 caliber body shots before death. There are not many except hardened soldiers and special forces who can sustain that. So I think martial races theory is not complete BS, perhaps less relevant but not completely irrelevant even in modern day.

From what I have heard about the little history of the middle East, Shia fighters were normally only defeated by Sunnis in most battles due overwhelming numerical superiority of 3-4x.


That the IA is an Army of banias who will not fight is a very wishful pakjabi fantasy and one that has proved them consistently wrong.

No Indian thinks that of his Army.


It must be utter fantasy to think that. They managed the unthinkable of attacking India was only because they thought Indian political leadership was too sheepish to respond to their antics and thought khans was on their side so damage would be limited. Latter was true but former took them by surprise. Now they are in no position to have any war. They will default in a week if they do the war with India. This is why I feel that they will keep Kashmir pot boiling forever because it is low cost war solution to them, but guess what it is low cost solution to blow up their bunkers in response too. We should be preparing hit squad to eliminate their terrorist leadership in pok and I guess that will be planned in Modi's next term when they will have majority to do reforms in both houses.

I will not comment further as I realized that it can detail the thread.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1230
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby sudeepj » 11 Jul 2018 22:30

chetak wrote:
ashish raval wrote:
Why don't you ask any general in Afghanistan on how many bullets of 5.56 or 7.62 caliber is required to make sure a Taliban is dead? Whatever they take it before fighting but they sustain on average 10 rounds of 7.62 and 16-20 rounds of 5.56 caliber body shots before death.


:rotfl: Someone doesnt know what a .223 or a .308 wound looks like.

But I do agree with your observation that Shia/Hezbollah fighters are better trained and more organized than the ISIS rabble. They arent super human or anything though.. As Chetak saab puts it without any unnecessary verbiage, everyone dies.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1057
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby dinesha » 12 Jul 2018 12:52

US-India relationship in need of a reboot
http://www.arabnews.com/node/1337161

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2664
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby kit » 12 Jul 2018 13:07

I don't think India is unduly worried about not being a American stooge

Haresh
BRFite
Posts: 713
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Haresh » 12 Jul 2018 15:20

ashish raval wrote:Why don't you ask any general in Afghanistan on how many bullets of 5.56 or 7.62 caliber is required to make sure a Taliban is dead? Whatever they take it before fighting but they sustain on average 10 rounds of 7.62 and 16-20 rounds of 5.56 caliber body shots before death.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

That's not true is it?
Where did you get those figures from?

I have fired a fair amount of both calibres and you are wrong.
7.62 will drop anyone as will 5.56
No matter anyone's fanatism, internal body organs are internal body organs and the human body is mostly liquid.
Rounds fired and rounds hitting are not the same.
10 rds of 7.62 fired maybe two hits
16-20 rds of 5.56 fired maybe two hits. 5.56 weapons normally have full auto capacity hence the 16-20 rds

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17658
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chetak » 12 Jul 2018 16:45

Haresh wrote:
ashish raval wrote:Why don't you ask any general in Afghanistan on how many bullets of 5.56 or 7.62 caliber is required to make sure a Taliban is dead? Whatever they take it before fighting but they sustain on average 10 rounds of 7.62 and 16-20 rounds of 5.56 caliber body shots before death.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

That's not true is it?
Where did you get those figures from?

I have fired a fair amount of both calibres and you are wrong.
7.62 will drop anyone as will 5.56
No matter anyone's fanatism, internal body organs are internal body organs and the human body is mostly liquid.
Rounds fired and rounds hitting are not the same.
10 rds of 7.62 fired maybe two hits
16-20 rds of 5.56 fired maybe two hits. 5.56 weapons normally have full auto capacity hence the 16-20 rds


Haresh ji,

someone sitting in the cosy comfort of londonistan is talking so blithely of "7.62 and 5.56" rounds and I am willing to wager quite a bit that he has seen neither, much less fired them.

shia fighters and sunni fighters and who takes more rounds to get put down??. Is there any such published study in the world?? and who would study such a grisly subject and to what end??

Maybe some armament manufacturer/designer??

For counter insurgency ops, the IA prefers to use the AK47, shooting a 7.62, 55 grain, full metal jacket bullets. It is an officially certified secular round that stops both sunnis and shias and also some bearded britshits who occasionally lose their way and land up in cashmere. Many AKs, liberated from neutralized beardos are quickly put back in combat duties, this time, in the hands of the IA.

A bullet causes damage by cavitation it passes thru and by yawing when passing through the human body, creating an internal cavity and causing massive damage.

This is a proxy dick measuring contest about aholes ayrabs who have neither dicks nor brains.

Why are you feeding the troll??

Haresh
BRFite
Posts: 713
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Haresh » 12 Jul 2018 21:02

chetak wrote:Why are you feeding the troll??


It was mot my intention to feed the troll, however I find it annoying that some people view these islamist nut jobs, shia or sunni's as some kind of super hero's.
Their eagerness for their 72 does not change their physiology or lack of tactics/training/intelligence!!

There has been quite a lot of research done on "stopping power"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=eXJH ... 0KWfOuvtF8

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4217
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Karthik S » 12 Jul 2018 21:39

ashish raval wrote:Who is Bania in Indian Army? Or you are theorising Bania as Indians? If you are relating bd's to Bania's then common, Pukes lost because of two front war with India coupled with Bd support. It was not won by bd alone, they could not have.

Indian army has disproportionate proportion from Indian martial races from all over India so Jats, Sikhs, Maratha, Rajputs and from Southern India. Your so called superior technology is not even a tiny match to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan if you think theory of martial races is bs. Why don't you ask any general in Afghanistan on how many bullets of 5.56 or 7.62 caliber is required to make sure a Taliban is dead? Whatever they take it before fighting but they sustain on average 10 rounds of 7.62 and 16-20 rounds of 5.56 caliber body shots before death. There are not many except hardened soldiers and special forces who can sustain that. So I think martial races theory is not complete BS, perhaps less relevant but not completely irrelevant even in modern day.

From what I have heard about the little history of the middle East, Shia fighters were normally only defeated by Sunnis in most battles due overwhelming numerical superiority of 3-4x.


Dude, I was thinking the same 'Martial Race' theory and mentioned the same once. Shiv saar immediately explained there are no martial races. Genetics don't form or evolve based on profession you take up. Jews are 'bania' people, but they defeated 'Martial' shias sunnis all the same, defeated spectacularly under overwhelming odds. Being a warrior is all in the mind, the tradition you are brought up in.

Regarding 10 7.62 bullets, yeah it's possible. In mission kashmir, Hilal (Jackie Shroff) held his head for 10 days without moving a millimeter after he was beheaded by the Russians. So taking 10 rounds from AK 47 is nothing for those guys.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1423
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ArjunPandit » 13 Jul 2018 00:24

Karthik S wrote:Dude, I was thinking the same 'Martial Race' theory and mentioned the same once. Shiv saar immediately explained there are no martial races. Genetics don't form or evolve based on profession you take up. Jews are 'bania' people, but they defeated 'Martial' shias sunnis all the same, defeated spectacularly under overwhelming odds. Being a warrior is all in the mind, the tradition you are brought up in.

Regarding 10 7.62 bullets, yeah it's possible. In mission kashmir, Hilal (Jackie Shroff) held his head for 10 days without moving a millimeter after he was beheaded by the Russians. So taking 10 rounds from AK 47 is nothing for those guys.

1. Possible for you to find the post
2. While shiv sir is hard to argue with, average physical characteristics does get moved. It's another thing that modern warfare has nullified that. Else 1:10 wouldn't have fallen flat in Israel and India
3. Getting shot once and dying is not unusual and I find it hard to believe but yogendra yadav was shot 14 times as per wiki
4. To me this stuff seems more like sunny and Mithun movies...errr sunny deol

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1482
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nam » 13 Jul 2018 00:36

ashish raval wrote:Why don't you ask any general in Afghanistan on how many bullets of 5.56 or 7.62 caliber is required to make sure a Taliban is dead? Whatever they take it before fighting but they sustain on average 10 rounds of 7.62 and 16-20 rounds of 5.56 caliber body shots before death.


:D They need extra bullets because those bu****g** are heavily doped. Nothing to do with being martial!

The same thing used to happen in Kashmir. Yet the "martial warrior" could not even take a inch of kashmir from us SDRE.

Martial race. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6211
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nachiket » 13 Jul 2018 01:09

chetak wrote:Why are you feeding the troll??

We all did it, myself included by continuing to talk about it. Let's stop.

No more about the martial race theory here. Any further posts will be deleted.

Back to India-US discussions.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6092
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Amber G. » 13 Jul 2018 01:13

Congratulations to U.S. team on their 1st place victory at the 59th International Mathematical Olympiad in Romania!

(5 golds, 1 Silver, 1 perfect score, Wow!)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dh6eKflXcAAhp2Z.jpg

Congratulations to Indian team. (3 Silvers, 2 Bronze, 1 HM).

I was watching it for last few days,-- few friends were participating -- and it was fun to guess/predict results based on partial scores etc.

I was hoping for Gold for Anant and Pranjal (14 years and I think youngest in history from India)

Full Official results are now posted on IMO site.
https://www.imo-official.org/results.aspx

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6092
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Amber G. » 13 Jul 2018 04:51

I am happy that Pak supporter Paul Manafort is in now in Jail..

I made a post about this guy.. a few years ago..It is still worth reading..<see link below>
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=2056199#p2056199
(Of course, at that time some of he die-hard Trump supporters pooh-poohed -- It is interesting to read posts after the above post..)

Specially read the next silly post where some one does a = = and and throws some insults at me along the way.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1649
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby g.sarkar » 13 Jul 2018 06:07

Amberji,
Paul Manafort is a low life that is found in muddied waters looking for financial gains.
Please read:
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/05/dec ... -politics/
"DECADES AGO, PAUL MANAFORT PLAYED A LEADING ROLE IN A PIONEERING OPERATION TO SECRETLY FUNNEL FOREIGN MONEY INTO U.S. POLITICS"
This talks about his association with KAC earlier and with Ukraine more recently. KAC was a front for the ISI.
Gautam

soumik
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby soumik » 13 Jul 2018 07:43


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9779
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Jul 2018 20:57

JNU will have to outdo this.
Maybe screen a few Malloostani Soaps to get The :(( Feel.

More than $40,000 has been raised to fund the blimp, with organizers now pledging to use that money to take the blimp on a “world tour”.
And fund some of Mayor Sadiq Khan's Deserving Buddies in Syria etc.

Trump was not the first US President so honored

Sidhant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 11:57

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Sidhant » 13 Jul 2018 22:04


I don’t understand the logic behind this. Has Trump warmed up to Modi lately or is this a pathetic attempt to appease him. Can’t figure out the chanakiyaness of this move.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9779
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jul 2018 07:59

Another victory led by HiC. For context, the AIF (American India Foundation) collected gazillions during and after HiC State Dept reign (fundraisers with $400 a plate etc at Country Clubs) but the ones who joined the Bright Idea with great hopes have quit and refuse to discuss the "v told u so".

This is a crying shame because the problem is huge (Hut Lung Disease and childhood eye disease are terrible things) but these worthies turned it into another Climate Change scam. The Carbon Footprint of their jetting around the world collecting $$$$ for themselves out-warmed all the carbon from hut smoke.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1057
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby dinesha » 16 Jul 2018 12:52

The India-Russia-US Energy Triangle. The United States and Russia are competing for India’s favor – and its energy market.
By Saurav Jha
https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/the-ind ... -triangle/
That convergence of interests means that India is not likely to let provisions of CAATSA, which can lead to secondary sanctions on non-U.S. entities involved in “Special Crude Projects” in Russia, deter it from further investments in the same. Indian investments have helped balance the influence of the Chinese in Russia’s upstream sector, something that has served to highlight India’s continuing geostrategic relevance to Moscow. In fact, India’s hydrocarbon imports from the United States and Russia will lead to both having an added interest in ensuring freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific. Besides, diversifying it energy imports, India will always look to balance that diversification.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1057
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby dinesha » 16 Jul 2018 12:53

India-US relationship: Is the top-down structure sustainable?
https://www.orfonline.org/research/4226 ... stainable/

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 16 Jul 2018 17:44

Sidhant wrote:

I don’t understand the logic behind this

Nothing to do with trump. Massaging the american ego has been part of new delhi's foreign policy since the cold war.

The S400 is a game changer for the future of Kashmir. With kashmir removed from the list of war theatres, the battle ground might shift to somewhere in balochistan, arunachal or Tibet.

The american policy makers will either need to halt the sale or take that the S400 into account in the coming wars.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4217
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Karthik S » 16 Jul 2018 18:59

nvishal wrote:The S400 is a game changer for the future of Kashmir.


Could you shed some more light on this please.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6211
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nachiket » 19 Jul 2018 01:33

Sidhant wrote:

I don’t understand the logic behind this. Has Trump warmed up to Modi lately or is this a pathetic attempt to appease him. Can’t figure out the chanakiyaness of this move.

Maybe because they know he likes them so much. When he saw the French parade, he demanded one in Washington. If he sees ours he'll demand Trident missiles in DC streets on July 4th. :P

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17658
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chetak » 19 Jul 2018 08:40

Another perspective on Trump and his impact on the world.

This is more realistic and credible than all the breast beating and wailing that is usually the bane of "liberals".

India should also be more realistic in its expectations, even though we are relatively more insulated from ameriki dictates than most others.

An Ally Sizes Up Donald Trump



An Ally Sizes Up Donald Trump

When he says something consistently, it will happen. And his message is that America will remain a reliable partner, but don’t expect too much.

By Tony Abbott, July 13, 2018


Eighteen months into Donald Trump’s term, the world is having trouble coming to grips with the most unconventional American president ever. Still, he is neither a bad dream from which the U.S. will soon wake up, nor a fool to be ridiculed.

For someone his critics say is a compulsive liar, Mr. Trump has been remarkably true to his word. Especially compared with his predecessor, he doesn’t moralize. It’s classic Trump to be openly exasperated by the Group of 7’s hand-wringing hypocrisy. Unlike almost every other democratic leader, Mr. Trump doesn’t try to placate critics. He knows it’s more important to get things done than to be loved.

The holder of the world’s most significant office should always be taken seriously. Erratic and ill-disciplined though Mr. Trump often seems, there’s little doubt that he is proving a consequential president. On the evidence so far, when he says something, he means it—and when he says something consistently, it will happen.

He said he’d cut taxes and regulation. He did, and the American economy is at its strongest in at least a decade. He said he’d pull out of the Paris climate-change agreement and he did, to the usual obloquy but no discernible environmental damage. He said he’d scrap the Iranian deal, and he did. If Tehran gets nuclear weapons, at least it won’t be with American connivance. He said he’d move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and he did, without catastrophe. He said he’d boost defense spending. That’s happening too, and adversaries no longer think that they can cross American red lines with impunity.

In Mr. Trump’s first year, he acted on 64% of the policy ideas proposed in the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership” agenda—not bad compared with Ronald Reagan’s 49%.

It’s a pity that he kept his promise to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But his concerns about that deal shouldn’t be dismissed. In the short term, freer trade can be better for rich people in poor countries than for poor people in rich ones.

Mr. Trump thinks that the effect of freer trade has been to make America’s rivals stronger. But as the Harley-Davidson example shows, global supply chains mean that even “all-American products” are made all over the world. The consequence of taxing imports can be losing exports, too, as other countries retaliate. So far, though, Mr. Trump’s strong rhetoric and tough action haven’t triggered a full-scale trade war, but have forced other countries to address America’s concerns about technology theft and predatory pricing.

Then there’s the nuclear diplomacy with North Korea. Maybe a hitherto brutal dictator is looking for the survival strategy that Mr. Trump has offered. On the other hand, it could turn into a latter-day version of the Iran deal, in which pressure is eased on the basis of promises that are never fully kept, while leaving allies unsure of American support. That’s the trouble with one-on-one meetings. They may be good for building trust, but they’re bad for making decisions, because each participant has his own version of what was meant.

Still, whatever your judgment on Mr. Trump’s presidency so far, he has 2½ more years in the world’s biggest job and every chance of being re-elected. He is the reality we have to work with.

For Australia, Mr. Trump has so far been a good president. Despite his testy initial conversation with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he has honored the “very bad deal” that President Obama made to take boat people from Nauru and Manus Island to settle in the U.S.

Mr. Trump seems to appreciate that Australia is the only ally that has been with America, side by side, in every conflict since World War I. He has exempted our steel and aluminum from the tariffs slapped on many others. As a country that’s paid its dues, so to speak, on the American alliance, we have been treated with courtesy and respect. Still, that’s no grounds for complacency in dealing with a transactional president.

As weightier allies found at the NATO summit this week, Mr. Trump is reluctant to help those who don’t pull their weight, and who can blame him? America has been the world’s policeman, the guarantor of a modicum of restraint from the world’s despots and fanatics. No other country has had both the strength and the goodwill for this essential task.

And America’s thanks for its seven decades of watchfulness and its prodigious expenditure of blood and treasure? Condescension from the intellectuals whose freedom the U.S. has protected, and commercial exploitation by the competitors that the American-led global order has created. It’s little wonder that Mr. Trump wants trade that’s fair as well as free, or that he’s tired of allies who give sermons from the sidelines while America keeps them safe.

The truth is that the rest of the world needs America much more than America needs us. The U.S. has no threatening neighbors. It’s about as remote from the globe’s trouble spots as is possible to be. It’s richly endowed with resources, including energy and an almost boundless agricultural capacity. Its technology is second to none. Its manufacturing base is vast. Its people are entrepreneurial in their bones. From diversity, it has built unity and an enviable pride in country.

In many respects, America is the world in one country, only a better world than the one outside. If it decided to live in splendid isolation from troubles across the sea, it would lose little and perhaps gain much, at least in the beginning. A fortress America would be as impregnable as any country could be.

Mr. Trump is clearly impatient with the liberal internationalism that has shaped American policy for 70 years, which he worries has been better for others than for the U.S. There are two possible versions of the evolving Trump doctrine. One goes something like this: America may help those who help themselves, but it will be likelier to help those who help America. The other, kinder version: They’re your values too, so don’t expect us to be the only ones fighting for them.

President Obama spoke beautifully about American values but was always cautious and sometimes slow to stand up for them. On his watch, the rules-based order was already unraveling. Mr. Trump is much more honest about the limits of American power. For all Mr. Obama’s high-mindedness on fringe issues like climate change, Mr. Trump’s America is more robust. It’s certainly less apologetic and readier to use force. So at least for those allies that don’t shirk their responsibilities, Mr. Trump’s America should remain a reliable partner. Just don’t expect too much.

A new age is coming. The legions are going home. American values can be relied upon but American help less so. This need not presage a darker time, like Rome’s withdrawal from Britain, but more will be required of the world’s other free countries. Will they step up? That’s the test.


I was prime minister when Mr. Obama declared at West Point in 2014 that America could not be the world’s policeman on its own. My response was that America need never be alone, and that while it would have more important and occasionally more useful allies, it would never have a more dependable one than Australia. As prime minister, I wanted to be a welcome contrast to those White House visitors asking America to do things for them—asking instead what we could do for America.

When the WikiLeaks spying scandal broke, there was nothing but strong support from Australia. When Islamic State stormed to the gates of Baghdad, Australian special forces, military training teams and strike fighters were there almost as quickly as American ones, because the U.S. should never have to take on the world’s fight solo.

Being America’s partner, as well as its friend, is even more important now, given Mr. Trump’s obsession with reciprocity. It may be the only hope of keeping America engaged in troubles that aren’t already its own.

In my judgment, Australia should have upgraded its Iraq mission to “advise, assist and accompany” as soon as America did, and extended it into Syria. Australia should have mounted freedom-of-navigation operations in the South China Sea. And Australia should have not only welcomed the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem but moved ours, too.

The rise of China means that Australia can no longer take for granted a benign strategic environment. For the first extended period in my country’s settled existence, the strongest power in our part of the world is unlikely to share our values. We can no longer be sure that a friendly nation will be the first to respond to a new challenge to peace, stability and decency in our region.

I fear there will have to be a much greater focus on strategic deterrence, especially if a rogue state like North Korea has long-range nuclear weapons—and especially if the American nuclear shield becomes less reliable.

My government increased Australia’s defense spending from a historical low of 1.6% of gross domestic product to 2%. I made the commitment to continuous construction of major surface ships and began the process of acquiring new submarines.

To its credit, the Turnbull government has continued this work. But I fear that dramatically increased military spending in our region overall—up 60% in the past decade—means that rather more now needs to be done. Can Australia’s ships be expected to operate without the air cover that an overstretched America may no longer provide? Can we afford to wait at least 15 years before the first of the next generation of submarines becomes operational? Does it really make sense for Australia to take a French nuclear submarine and redesign it for conventional power, making it less potent than it currently is?

My instinct is that acquiring a capacity to strike harder and further, while giving our country and our armed forces greater protection, could soon require military spending well beyond 2% of GDP. Our armed forces need to be more capable of operating independently against even a substantial adversary, because that is what a truly sovereign nation must be prepared to do.

America spends more than 3% of the world’s biggest GDP on its armed forces, and the rest of the Western world scarcely breaks 2%. It’s hard to dispute Mr. Trump’s view that most of us have been keeping safe on the cheap. The U.S. can’t be expected to fight harder for Australia than we are prepared to fight for ourselves. What Mr. Trump is making clear—to us and to others—is what should always have been screamingly obvious: that each nation’s safety now rests in its own hands far more than in anyone else’s.

Mr. Abbott served as prime minister of Australia, 2013-15. This is adapted from a speech he delivered Wednesday at the Heritage Foundation in Washington


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jpremnath, ravikr, sgopal and 33 guests