India-US News and Discussion

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Jul 2009 20:33

Manny wrote: According to y'alls logic, a Plane taking off from Kandahar should follow Afghan Taliban laws where a Talibani can board a plane bound for India,...with his AK47 and rocket launchers because he is a VIP in the Talibani community.

Fine I do not have anything much to add if you can compare India with a non-existent failed state and its procedures. All I can say is might is right and we shall see that our laws prevail. US sentivities and your disdainful/derogatory opinions notwithstanding the TSA punk and Continental Airlines will pay for their CRIME as they have committed a crime on our soil subject to our laws.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 24 Jul 2009 20:36

A personal anecdote. On a flight to Sri Lanka a year ago, I saw a very familiar looking British gentleman and a friend standing a few places behind me in the security queue. After the gentleman's bag was checked, the rather brusque staff at IGI airport even asked him to open it. He did so without demur, packed all his things away afterwards, smiled at the staff and stood in the queue again to board his flight. The gentleman was none other than former British prime minister Tony Blair! A lesson for our VIPs?

An American mouthpeice clearing her dues to the masters.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 24 Jul 2009 20:45

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
I'm not terribly in favour of VIP culture, where they get fast-tracks and privileges for everything, while leaving the common man to languish.
What will be the reaction of American government if Air India staffers tomorrow ask George Bush to remove his shoes and get himself searched before boarding an Air India aircraft parked in an American airport?

Americans hate kalam because of his involement in missile development. They have singled him out for humiliation.

Let me tell you what would happen in that case.

There would not be an incident. George Bush or Bill Clinton will comply. If they did not, it would be a big news where the American citizens would string them up by the collar for double standards! An American citizen expects their leaders pretty much to go through the same laws and security compliance. THATS HOW THE AMERICANS WOULD REACT! That s what is good about Americans.

Every Senator and Congressman passing through Washington Dulles airport security every week (Yes, they commute Monday to Thur from their home state). I have stood behind a couple of Senator at that airport security line.

Americans could care less about Kalam. Its the far lefties of India who hate America while they would stand in line and strip down to their nickers at the embassy and beg for a Visa and probably go on a rant and depression if their Visa is denied to these far lefty Ameri Haters.

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Jul 2009 20:53

Manny wrote:An American citizen expects their leaders pretty much to go through the same laws and security compliance

No they do not, go and check the SS protocols before bad mouthing India left, right and centre. None of the US former Prez can even be touched leave alone be frisked in SS presence on US territory.

THATS HOW THE AMERICANS WOULD REACT! That s what is good about Americans

Too bad New Delhi is not in Amreeka and the racist TS guy's Musharraff will be toasted as he has affronted the former President of Republic of India, Dr Kalam. He has done a crime he will also do the time in the cool climate of Tihar jail

.

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Jul 2009 20:59

Manny wrote: Every Senator and Congressman passing through Washington Dulles airport security every week (Yes, they commute Monday to Thur from their home state). I have stood behind a couple of Senator at that airport security line.

All Indian legislators go through security checks at our airports as they are not in the exemption list and I have stood behind Indian LS/RS MPs in a security check quuue. Before you pull out some obscure report about any MLS/MP misbehaving with security on airport, remember they are taken to task for it. Only the exmept list is allowed to breeze through the security protocols and there are but 20 official ranks that are exempt amounting no more than 100 odd people who are exempt in a nation of 1.2 billion. Big deal.

archan · Post by **archan** » 24 Jul 2009 21:12

okay, this is getting a tad boring. So let us find a way out.
1) can someone post who are the people on the security check exempt list among Indian VIPs.
2) if none of them have any connection to the underworld or are "thugs", then Manny gets a warning right here.
3) if after that he continues with his drivel, he gets another warning.
4) step 3 is repeatable.

Manny has made an allegation that India's VIP list could contain a "thug" who could be harmful to the US if allowed in without security check. So either he substantiates this allegation or someone proves him wrong. In the former case there is no warning, in the latter case, there is definitely one.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 24 Jul 2009 21:27

x-posting from Mullah KKs research in Nukkad

....

AjayKK wrote:From Lok Sabha questions, on 20/3/08 the Aviation Minister provided the list of people exempted fom frisking.

http://164.100.47.132/psearch/QResult14.aspx?qref=62600

Re question : any body knows the "official reason" of no. 30 and his mention by name ?

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Jul 2009 21:29

All Former President/Vice president
Three service cheifs
The President
The Vice President
Prime Minister
Lok Sabha Speaker
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Chief Justices of High Courts
judges of the Supreme Court
Leaders of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
Cabinet Ministers
Ministers of State in the Union Council of Ministers
All Governors and Lieutenant-Governors of Union Territories,
Chief Ministers and Deputy Chief Ministers of Union Territories.
Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission
Bharat Ratna awardees
Chief Election Commissioner
Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Attorney-General of India
Cabinet Secretary.
Ambassadors of foreign countries
Charge d’affaires
High Commissioners and their spouses
the Dalai Lama, SPG protectees
and Robert VadraA

(Damn PG bhat has beaten me to it, thanks bhat saab

)

Where are the thugs in this list Manny saab? And how many of them of them travel to US? Not many I would say.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Jul 2009 21:37

'Obama, Hillary differ in courting India'

Washington (IANS): Suggesting a foreign policy rift between President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Forbes columnist says her trip to India "is Clinton's way of literally and figuratively distancing herself from Mr. Obama".

"She left the U.S. amid reports of intense infighting with a White House intent on marginalising her role," said Gordon G. Chang, a columnist of the U.S. business magazine.

"Real policymaking power, some say, is now exercised by a small West Wing group cantered on Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
...
...
"One of her State Department aides has argued in off-the-record conversations that Obama has been making a series of foreign policy blunders, among them letting the Chinese do whatever they want and giving them more than they ask for," he suggested.
...
In search of a better China policy, "the White House saw the need to hedge against China, it looked to Russia," he says suggesting that's what the president's trip to Moscow this month was all about.

"Clinton's concept of siding with another large democracy seems much more attractive - and sustainable. Most important, the U.S. and India share values," Mr. Chang said.
...
...

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Jul 2009 21:51

'Hillary dispelled India's doubts on Obama administration'

...
"Hillary did an admirable job dispelling these doubts and in a way which was in line with the significant achievements of the Bush presidency, which treated India as a rising global power and doing something about it -- for example the nuclear deal," he said.

Andersen spoke of how Clinton had achieved this in two parts -- careful attention to public relations combined "with solid achievements."
...
Andersen also noted that "on the nagging G-8 resolution, she largely put the issue to rest by stating that there was no going back on the nuclear deal and that the US was not opposed to enrichment transfers as such, but was opposed to what she referred as 'inappropriate' transfers of such technology."

"On the substantive side, there were solid achievements that left no doubt that the Obama administration intends to build on the foundation of both the Bush and Clinton administrations," he added, and argued that "perhaps the most significant achievement was the signing of an end-user verification agreement required for the purchase of sophisticated US military equipment."

Andersen said, "Obviously, both sides almost certainly made compromises in the particulars of the agreement, although the precise wording has still not been released."

He predicted that despite the controversy over this, particularly among the Opposition parties in India, "As trade picks up, it will tie the US and India more closely to each other strategically, which is what really bothers the Indian left and right."

...
...
Andersen, author of the seminal book on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh titled, The Brotherhood of Saffron nearly three decades ago, said it was unfortunate that the Left Front and the right-wing parties, "and many in the ruling Congress itself still lack confidence in India's ability to protect its interests in the larger international arena, but Indian foreign policy will not become subservient to the US, as they fear."

While acknowledging that "major bilateral disagreements and some, such as the climate issues, came up during Clinton's visit, the fact is that the US and India are largely together on big international issues."

Andersen also said the agreement on a Technology Safeguards Agreement that permits US components on satellites launched from India, was particularly significant since "that is the start of what could be discussions on a full-fledged commercial space launch agreement."
..
...
According to Curtis, Clinton's answer to a question, over India's concern about US' ties with Pakistan and China, was profound in that "she pointed to the US and India sharing a commitment to the principles of democracy as one of the underpinnings of the Indo-US relationship."

"This should provide reassurance to the Indians that the Obama administration will not take India for granted and is ready to explore ways to strengthen bilateral ties."
...
...
Curtis said Clinton's clarifications "when she said flatly that the US did not intend to deny India any transfers," should put to rest doubts among some Indians about Obama's intentions toward civil nuclear trade with India.

...
Curtis said, "For years, India has perceived that the US does not take seriously terrorist attacks against India that originate in Pakistan, so Clinton's actions and strong statements will be remembered and appreciated by Indians for a long time to come."

"She did not make demands on India to return to the composite dialogue with Pakistan, but instead made a general appeal on Pakistan's behalf, that it was showing commitment to reining in terrorists and therefore should be supported by other countries," she noted.
...
...
Andersen acknowledged that India's close relationship with Iran would undeniably be an irritant in the envisaged strategic partnership but also agreed with Ganguly's contention that Clinton had handled the question deftly, instead "noting that on Iranian possession of nuclear weapons, the US and India are together in opposing it getting such a capability."
...
...
But Andersen said there was an understanding in Washington that "from a strategic perspective, a relatively strong Iran might suit Indian purposes as it is a Shia country opposed to the radical Sunni ideology represented by the Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ], the Taliban [ Images ] and al-Qaeda."

He said it must not be forgotten that Iran "once worked closely with India and the US, in opposing Taliban hegemony in Afghanistan," and it's highly unlikely considering the relationship that is rooted in history, that New Delhi will forgo its ties with Teheran.

"India and Iran have worked together to build port, road and rail facilities that link India to Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republicans via the port of Chah Behar," which has been invaluable to India "as Pakistan prevents India transshipment rights to Afghanistan and beyond to the Central Asian Republics."

I don't know why all these analysts feel that saying some nice things will make all problems go away?? Deeds matter more than words, and trying to arm twist India while continuing to arm pakistan and mollycuddling it just doesn't cut it. Follow up words with actions, and then we can judge for ourselves. Asking for concessions from India on kashmir, pushing troop reduction on LoC, asking India to abosrb and ignore terrorist attacks/infrastructure in pakistan, trying to go back on Nuclear deal commitments, double standards wrt Iran and Pakistan, the general af-pak strategy etc while publicly saying that US thinks India is a strategic partner and wants India to step up is pure unadulterated BS

archan · Post by **archan** » 24 Jul 2009 21:55

munna wrote: (Damn PG bhat has beaten me to it, thanks bhat saab )

Where are the thugs in this list Manny saab? And how many of them of them travel to US? Not many I would say.

OK, so are there/have there been any thugs in this list?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 24 Jul 2009 21:55

Hmm ... from AjayKKs x-post .....

if APJK gets treated like that then what are we doing with this in our list?

28. Visiting Foreign dignitaries of the above status

.... We need to seriously start reviewing protocols being followed. I am assuming all these waivers also apply for "non-official" visits ... i.e one without the use of Diplomatic/Official passport.

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Jul 2009 21:58

archan wrote:
munna wrote: (Damn PG bhat has beaten me to it, thanks bhat saab )

Where are the thugs in this list Manny saab? And how many of them of them travel to US? Not many I would say.
OK, so are there/have there been any thugs in this list?

None sir none! All people barring the first son in law are generally the cream of our system and some of the most distinguished people in India. Come to think of the sheer bigotry and arrogance on display by US airline is atrocious.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2009 22:03

Manny deserves a warning for exaggeration and hyperbole.

Archan, Please go ahead.

archan · Post by **archan** » 24 Jul 2009 22:09

User warning added.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 24 Jul 2009 22:44

^^^ Hope i dont get a warning for this, Ramana garu = traffic circle inspector archan garu = traffic sub inspector

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2009 22:59

Do you want to be honored?

archan · Post by **archan** » 24 Jul 2009 23:06

Lets cut him a challan, and if BadeSahab is not watching, we can simply collect chai-paani and let him go.

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Jul 2009 23:10

Ramanaji and all other US specialist gurujan, what do you think will be the effect of Obama's upcoming failure on healthcare front? Obama has expended a lot of energy behind the fiscal stimulus and most people are not really comfortable with his ultra fast push towards healthcare insurance by state. Given that and his unimaginative foreign policy so far I believe he will be much more moderate and sobre headed to talk to by GOI about a year from now, cause as of now his administration is punch drunk on the electoral victory. Do the gurus think that BO will mend his ways and start treating a fellow democracy with the respect it deserves?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 24 Jul 2009 23:14

WSJIDEBATE: Should India Consider U.S. Mediation With Pakistan? ---- from WSJ online.

Shikhar Singh: Solve the Dispute à l'Américain

[Shikhar, an undergraduate student at St. Stephen's College, University of Delhi and an alumnus of The Doon School, is an avid follower of politics and international affairs. He is a keen debater and a regular contributor to student journals. Shikhar blogs at http://shikhar46.blogspot.com.]

The post Cold War scene has drastically changed the role of mediators in intractable conflicts. From masking their ideological interests to playing the role of impartial peace brokers, mediators have redefined their significance. Today, they play a crucial role in creating an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation between warring parties. This is the rationale I will extend to the Indo-Pak conflict, which is trapped in a circuitous dialogue process, and argue why American participation as an interlocutor is essential.
[Shikhar Singh]

<SNIP>
The answer lies in two things— first, that U.S. involvement in Indo-Pak relations is a necessary feature of the peace process and this is recognized by India; second, that India's political class, mainly constituted by the centre-left Congress Party and remnants of the Socialist movement, is ideologically wary of America and its involvement in core foreign policy issues even though there is no evidence of any popular support for the resultant mindless anti-Americanism.

However, this is India's self-created compulsion which must be broken because of the benefits of U.S. mediation and the absence of a better substitute.

The benefits of U.S. mediation are threefold. First, the issue of terrorism resonates with the U.S., which as a mediating party can exercise more influence on Pakistan to stop sponsoring cross-border terrorism. Second, as an agent of positive pressure, the United States can incentivize the peace process and nudge India and Pakistan into taking concrete steps. Third, as an agent of restraint, the U.S. can prevent war and open-hostilities from derailing the fragile peace process. These functions, though already performed by the U.S., can be more effective if India officially acknowledges external mediation.

The lack of a better substitute to the U.S. is also a reason for India to accept American participation. No other country enjoys the same level of influence and impartiality towards India-Pakistan as the U.S.

To summarize, India's objection to U.S. mediation is a policy orientation of the past and one forced by domestic political compulsions of a dubious kind. Both are weak reasons to deny American intervention, when it already exists and benefits the peace process.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2009 23:21

No. His advisers are Brezenski disciples. So India doesn't count for them. Right now their focussed on evacuating from Afghanistan liek Nixon pulled out of Vietnam. So what they want is to have the Pakis go after the Afghan Taliban and give semblance of reduced killings. However the pro quid quo for this is India dilutes its stance on Kashmir and gives legitimacy/immunity to TSPA's terrorist attacks. This is all that Sharm -el Sheikh was about.

Long time ago I asked someoen with cartoon skills to draw this pciture. A bearded Paki in salwar hitting a dhoti clad Indian and Uncle Sam restraining the Indian from retaliating along with an Indian in a suit with disinterested look.
The Paki has to periodically hit the Indians to assure himself that everything is still there. And the US interest is to let him do that for the minion has other uses. The only one who gets hurt in the process is the Indian in the dhoti. The Indian in the suit is getting the baksheesh from US.

--------
Is that guy "shikar" singh or "game" singh?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 24 Jul 2009 23:32

I think is Shikhar as in mountain??

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 23:35

pgbhat wrote:The lack of a better substitute to the U.S. is also a reason for India to accept American participation. No other country enjoys the same level of influence and impartiality towards India-Pakistan as the U.S.

Sorry to belabor the point, but when this above behavior is quoted in the TSP thread its kosher, however the same statement on how US and Indian strategic interests do not align is quoted as an exhibit in other threads there are howls of protests and very little support!!

How come?

Do we Indians see the right thing only through the TSP prism and thats where we get nationalistic? If so we need to grow up and fast.

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Jul 2009 23:38

ramana wrote:This is all that Sharm -el Sheikh was about.

Long time ago I asked someoen with cartoon skills to draw this pciture. A bearded Paki in salwar hitting a dhoti clad Indian and Uncle Sam restraining the Indian from retaliating along with an Indian in a suit with disinterested look.
The Paki has to periodically hit the Indians to assure himself that everything is still there. And the US interest is to let him do that for the minion has other uses. The only one who gets hurt in the process is the Indian in the dhoti. The Indian in the suit is getting the baksheesh from US

Agreed the Indian elite is least bothered about the menace afflicting us as was borne out by the voting preferences of the urban centres. My view of this is that with US backing a country there is little to be gained by openly being antagonistic in the absence of a benevolent Soviet Union backing up our undies. Our strategy lies in playing the attrition game and thoroughly laying waste the resources being expended in prski land, as also pray that all the political capital of bada ullu is expended for the healthcare bill. There is no other way that we can teach him a lesson and I believe MMS was trying somthing like that in his own bungling/iappropriate way.

--------
Is that guy "shikar" singh or "game" singh?

I hold no brief for Shikar Singh but do believe his presence saves us from a lot of trouble otherwise coming our way in the form of anatgonistic west that would have hounded us with a Modi/Advani as PM. The best case scenario is Obama fails in his healthcare bill initiative, MMS does chai-biskoot for 5 years and then we have a far more virulent regime take over the reins of economically stronger India in charge of a complete triad of deterrent.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Jul 2009 23:39

>>>what do you think will be the effect of Obama's upcoming failure on healthcare front?
my my my. So we already have folks predicting it to be a failure. Obama is doing his part for his country. And I hope our leaders do their part for their country. If India does not demand and command respect it is not going to get it. Time and again, we expect more (or less) from foreign leaders than our leaders. Sad.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 24 Jul 2009 23:44

pgbhat wrote:The lack of a better substitute to the U.S. is also a reason for India to accept American participation. No other country enjoys the same level of influence and impartiality towards India-Pakistan as the U.S.

India is the patient, china is the disease, pakistan is the syndrome, us is the quack, uk is the quack from yesterday's intervention.

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Jul 2009 23:46

SwamyG wrote:>>>what do you think will be the effect of Obama's upcoming failure on healthcare front?
my my my. So we already have folks predicting it to be a failure. Obama is doing his part for his country. And I hope our leaders do their part for their country. If India does not demand and command respect it is not going to get it.

SwamyG you have missed my point. I am trying to analyze the effects of a weakened US president upon foreign policy. The noise being generated on the rajdhani parvatam points to either a failed initiative or a heavily diluted healthcare bill only passing muster. My point is uptil now big Owl was firmly entrenched and could line up domestic support for anything and everything on his agenda. With his domestic support becoming shaky he will be more vulnerable to lobby groups and then the fun and games will begin! Anyways with Democrats in saddle there is no scope for constructive Indo-US relations only give and takes will take place which by all indications have been reduced to give on our side as of now.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 24 Jul 2009 23:51

munna wrote:SwamyG you have missed my point. I am trying to analyze the effects of a weakened US president upon foreign policy. The noise being generated on the rajdhani parvatam points to either a failed initiative or a heavily diluted healthcare bill only passing muster. My point is uptil now big Owl was firmly entrenched and could line up domestic support for anything and everything on his agenda. With his domestic support becoming shaky he will be more vulnerable to lobby groups and then the fun and games will begin! Anyways with Democrats in saddle there is no scope for constructive Indo-US relations only give and takes will take place which by all indications have been reduced to give on our side as of now.

Traditionally when US presidents are weakened domestically, they try their hand in foreign affairs (Makes perfect sense: somebody else pays a price for failure. Any win is a bonus and can be paraded at home. You are not arm twisting the locals, you are arm twisting foreign leaders). Like Bill C after the lewinsky affair trying his hand with Camp David Summit. Or GWB after the f'up in Iraq trying his hand in the new clear deal and sending condi rice to the middle east.

So if BO gets weak domestically, he will try to get a foreign policy win by meddling with the middle east, and all the 3-letter and 4-letter treaties.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 23:55

munna wrote: I hold no brief for Shikar Singh but do believe his presence saves us from a lot of trouble otherwise coming our way in the form of anatgonistic west that would have hounded us with a Modi/Advani as PM. The best case scenario is Obama fails in his healthcare bill initiative, MMS does chai-biskoot for 5 years and then we have a far more virulent regime take over the reins of economically stronger India in charge of a complete triad of deterrent.

Yes the law of unintended consequences/Karma.

Aapke muh mein ghee shakkar

munna · Post by **munna** » 25 Jul 2009 00:04

Anujan wrote: Traditionally when US presidents are weakened domestically, they try their hand in foreign affairs (Makes perfect sense: somebody else pays a price for failure. Any win is a bonus and can be paraded at home. You are not arm twisting the locals, you are arm twisting foreign leaders). Like Bill C after the lewinsky affair trying his hand with Camp David Summit. Or GWB after the f'up in Iraq trying his hand in the new clear deal and sending condi rice to the middle east.

So if BO gets weak domestically, he will try to get a foreign policy win by meddling with the middle east, and all the 3-letter and 4-letter treaties.

That is pretty much what I am expecting to happen 1-2 years down the line! I guess our chance golden chance of getting back at big owl would come when he would have exhausted his goody bag of hope and blessings (H&B) for domestic audience and would try to take H&B to us YYYs for the masla e Kashmir. Needless to say he will be a needle's width away from solving the issue when the chankian yindoos will deny him that

. George Bush was a visionary and I respect him for the respect he had shown to India unlike the condescending Dems who will be shown their places in not too distant future.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 25 Jul 2009 00:19

munna wrote:George Bush was a visionary and I respect him for the respect he had shown to India unlike the condescending Dems who will be shown their places in not too distant future.

Please take your US-centric Dems Vs Reps nonsense somewhere else (perhaphs to Rush Limbaugh show where you can get some kudos). We on BR know that except for nuances, Dems or Reps, its India TSP equal equal. Bush was a visionary, my foot. Whats up with all those billions of $s and arms and other goddies he pumped into the coffers of TSP?

NRN
(no reply necessary)

archan · Post by **archan** » 25 Jul 2009 00:24

CRamS wrote:
munna wrote:George Bush was a visionary and I respect him for the respect he had shown to India unlike the condescending Dems who will be shown their places in not too distant future.
Please take your US-centric Dems Vs Reps nonsense somewhere else (perhaphs to Rush Limbaugh show where you can get some kudos). We on BR know that except for nuances, Dems or Reps, its India TSP equal equal. Bush was a visionary, my foot. Whats up with all those billions of $s and arms and other goddies he pumped into the coffers of TSP?

NRN
(no reply necessary)

Sir, you are simply rude. It does not matter what the issue is, I am simply looking at the language. Please know that this is unacceptable. You already have two warnings. Another one will come with a ban.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Jul 2009 01:42

RaviBg wrote:'Obama, Hillary differ in courting India'

"She left the U.S. amid reports of intense infighting with a White House intent on marginalising her role," said Gordon G. Chang, a columnist of the U.S. business magazine.

"Real policymaking power, some say, is now exercised by a small West Wing group cantered on Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... st&p=99782
The Mute Star: Hillary Clinton
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0 ... -2,00.html

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 25 Jul 2009 02:38

George Bush was a visionary and I respect him for the respect he had shown to India unlike the condescending Dems who will be shown their places in not too distant future.

Yeah yeah yeah. Yet again we see Indians thinking one of the parties is better than the other in terms of foreign policy. I would take Obama on any day than Bush for domestic issues and policies; as far as foreign policies go they are all water from the same river. Hence my point that India should stop expecting from non-Indian leaders and elect and expect from Indian leaders. You see I did not really miss my point.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 25 Jul 2009 02:46

US foreign policy is always Right wing whether the government at home is Left or Right wing.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 25 Jul 2009 02:52

^^^^
We need to stop looking at things as Left or Right. Demos or Rethugs. Countries look after their own interests; diplomats and politicians might be willing to compromise on certain issues. And other countries have to seize those compromises and make better use for their countries.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Jul 2009 03:04

I believe munna said something in favor of George W. Bush and not in favor of Republicans in general.

Whatever be the case, George W. Bush went a long way in courting India and bringing her out of the nuclear dog house. The one thing we as Indians should remember is how to treat our friends and how to treat our enemies. If you don't give respect to your friends, who would want to be your friend in the future. Friends are those who have done something for India and not just made a few compliments here and then. Its concrete actions that should give somebody that honor. Friend of India should start to mean something, start to be a badge of honor. So let us start treating our friends well.

This is not to be mixed up with servile behavior.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 25 Jul 2009 03:13

RajeshA wrote:I believe munna said something in favor of George W. Bush and not in favor of Republicans in general.

Whatever be the case, George W. Bush went a long way in courting India and bringing her out of the nuclear dog house.

This is getting OT but I sincerely believe that the breakthrough with GWB came from the babus under ABV and Jaswant Singh talking to a president who suffers from ADD. They probably peddled such things as Democracy and shared strategic interests which gelled well with GWB's rhetoric, probably worked out some Quid-Pro-Quo for supplying munna with weapons and otherwise dulled them with massive dose of chai-biskoot.

There was this JS talk about setting up institutions for co-operation rather than relationships becoming personality and agreement driven. It is very enlightening. What I am trying to say, is that it is more of an India-initiative rather than any far reaching vision of a US prez about realigning relationship. The current dispensation in India is not as single minded or as creative. The current dispensation in the US is not as India-friendly.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 25 Jul 2009 04:30

I repeat Unkil will do things that benefits him. Who is currently in the safaid ghar does not matter.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 25 Jul 2009 04:33

Most of policy stems from langley and pentagon ... marketing is left to the govermund of the day.