Rungudu garuRungudu wrote:Yes, one look at Pranab Mukherjee and his ilk makes the world tremble with fear.
RD ji,Rudradev wrote:Can we seriously believe there's no US intent to contain India behind all this?
Ramana garu, I think you misunderstand. What I am saying is that physical appearances and accents are of no importance. What matters is the substance which is to resist signing CTBT.ramana wrote:You can double over but he is the last hand and is thus very important.
Venkat, Shivmulla's third eye was targeted most likely at myself...anyway the good doctor means well, and he has his way of stressing the point, so I ignore those remarks. Suggest do the same...venkat_r wrote:LoL!! Anyone who does not share your opinion should be branded as a mouth piece.
matrimc wrote:Ramana garu, I think you misunderstand. What I am saying is that physical appearances and accents are of no importance. What matters is the substance which is to resist signing CTBT.ramana wrote:You can double over but he is the last hand and is thus very important.
To fight local (within-outside) adversaries on US behalfWe are not talking about TSPA killing their own citizens, which is their internal matter.Rangudu wrote:RamaY,
US military $$ to TSP is baksheesh to buy cooperation, limited or not. By your logic, when India reconciled with Burmese Generals even as they were slaughtering their own people, was India's intentions to see the death of ordinary Burmese?
Gleaning intentions from outcomes using a single variable model is fundamentally flawed.
Virupaksha wrote:Rawngudu saar,
Your example is also an perfect example for "torn shirt open fly".
That doesn't take away from the point i.e. US aid to TSPA is baksheesh to maintain influence. To assume that US *wants* Indian citizens killed and hence is funding TSPA is erroneous.RamaY wrote:We are not talking about TSPA killing their own citizens, which is their internal matter.
We are talking about TSPA's cross-border terrorism. This is a concern to India.
Nope, it is an example of "Open fly, open fly" i.e. if you want Unkil to cut off TSP, then first you cut off TSP. If not, the complaint looks hypocritical.Virupaksha wrote:Rawngudu saar,
Your example is also an perfect example for "torn shirt open fly".
Shiv, Open forum, fair enough. The point here is that you are getting twisted over all the USA and getting yourself into a knot!! it is you who have the taqleef and developed a bile over this - i could care less. My suggestion is to suck it up.shiv wrote: Go ahead. The forum is open. Post your opinion and I'll have my say. What I find funny is that no one worries about how or why Pakistan manages to create mouthpieces out of Indians. People are happy only to curse such Indians. But here you are getting all twisted up because I said something about USA-rakshakism. I think US mouthpieces should be criticized just like Paki mouthpieces. If you have a problem with that its tough.
Anyway this is OT - but it goes to show how much taqleef and persistent argument is caused simply by being critical of America on a forum where criticism of anything Indian or Pakistani is fair game in the name of patriotism. Chillax brother. It is OK to be patriotic about America. I understand and empathize. No need to feel guilty. But it is also OK to criticize that.
cut off is different from support.India is probably not cutting off Pakistan, but it is not supporting it either. US is the bulwark behind Pakistan.Rangudu wrote:Nope, it is an example of "Open fly, open fly" i.e. if you want Unkil to cut off TSP, then first you cut off TSP. If not, the complaint looks hypocritical.Virupaksha wrote:Rawngudu saar,
Your example is also an perfect example for "torn shirt open fly".
Thanks for the clarification - I have and continue to get insights and educated by his comments over the years, but on this particular topic, somehow do not understand the wit or the lesson yetSuppiah wrote:Venkat, Shivmulla's third eye was targeted most likely at myself...anyway the good doctor means well, and he has his way of stressing the point, so I ignore those remarks. Suggest do the same...venkat_r wrote:LoL!! Anyone who does not share your opinion should be branded as a mouth piece.
Yes this is completely ridiculous. The over-the-top hypothetical equivalent would be if the US urged restraint and "aman" everytime the Pakis blow up stuff in India and then turned around to threaten and bomb Pakistan when similar things happen(or were planned) in their own backyard.Rangudu wrote:Nope, it is an example of "Open fly, open fly" i.e. if you want Unkil to cut off TSP, then first you cut off TSP. If not, the complaint looks hypocritical.
It'd be easy to take you seriously, if a) the people who think this are both US rakshaks and India rakshaks. Thats silly. There are many Indians who can see through the complete mismanagement that exists across the board in India, and the horrible quality of life concerns which result (terrorism being one among them). As matter of fact, some of the biggest pro-India boosters on this forum - who keep yacking away on how great the Indian economy is, how the future will come etc etc, are all clearly NRI expats, with their lives nicely aligned elsewhere. One worthy on the hidden forum even went so far as to claim Salman Khurshid was credited with *only* 71L corruption, never mind the cretin clearly is not living in India to even understand what that amount is worth for the average middle class Indian. Others have made their pile abroad & are now R2I or are living comfortable lives locally. Sorry, but these groups don't represent India or even middle class Indians who have to suffer complete mismanagement across the board.Virupaksha wrote:lesson or wit is simple. There is a class of people in their minds who are both US rakshaks and India rakshaks, and many of them chose to be US rakshaks over India rakshaks when there is a conflict. Nothing wrong with that and for many US citizens of Indian origin, that is how it should be. All it is means pure India rakshaks should take care to add a pinch of salt when interacting with these dual rakshaks.
One of the most important point of conflict is treatment of Pakistan by US, which is against Indian interests.
Sire, there is no great plan. There is a very simple logic based on two points.ramana wrote:INC might have grand plan to all their phappi jhappi for thermselves.
No, that's Indian logic & you just displayed the classical issue that plagues most Indians. When faced with uncomfortable facts, we play the man & not the ball. And the man, as long as he is not powerful enough to harm us, in which case our love of hierarchy comes out, and its sir, sir.Virupaksha wrote:Anujanullah,
keep using that logic and someday soon lahori logic will have a new name, MassaUnkil logic.
To paraphrase P.T. Barnum, nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the Great Indian Political Class.ramana wrote:INC might have grand plan to all their phappi jhappi for thermselves.
What does "insensitive" have to do with it? I haven't asked a question that addresses the "morality", "righteousness" or any other parameter of emotional validity regarding the situation. It's an entirely factual question.matrimc wrote:RD ji,Rudradev wrote:Can we seriously believe there's no US intent to contain India behind all this?
The answer is yes. Sorry if I come across as insensitive but the fact of the matter is India is a collateral damage in US's machinations to remain the world's top dog. I don't think India has any leverage to change US behavior. That needs to be built up and what Shiv ji is proposing - rub the US the wrong way - is not going to cut it. Mind you, I am not saying that we have to roll over and play dead but there is a middle way.
Virupaksha,Virupaksha wrote:Karan M ji,
calm down and reread what others have said and not said.
Your logic when drilled down to its essentials, because India is not taking any actions against Pakistan, US is justified and infact has taken the correct approach to support Pakistan with arms against India.
and then people wonder why Hakeem ji has so much fun piskoing on this line of thought.
R-man, please forgive the length of my posts. Like you, I have much less time to spend on BR than I did once. That's why I hardly ever post anymore. However, when I do post, I want to be as clear as possible about what I mean to say, no matter how nuanced. So I take the time, and write posts detailed enough to exclude as much ambiguity as I can.Rangudu wrote:RD,
Boss, my sincere request for you to get to the point, i.e the 'elevator pitch'. I just don't have the time, unlike before, to digest long posts.
I disagree. Some types of Unkil largesse are more fungible than others, and a distinction must be made. Money can be spent anywhere. Some types of weapons can plausibly be used against the Taliban (though certainly against India as well.) However, armaments specific for air-to-air combat, naval combat and anti-armour combat have no conceivable use for Pakistan other than to target India. Can the supply of these armaments to Pakistan by the US be explained away as "keeping lines of communication open" without necessarily implying mal-intent towards India? Not in my view.To your reply above, here's what I'd say:
(1) I did not say Unkil needs to keep 'options open', but rather, Unkil needs to keep lines of comm to TSPA. The price for that is a certain level of $$$ flowing. Even in the past, Unkil has certified whatever Congress asked for, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. None of this is evidence of mal-intent against India, because by definition any help to keep TSP afloat eventually hurts India, with money being fungible and weapons being redeployable etc.
Agreed, it's not earth-shattering... and the waiver, at least technically, represents a deterioration of US-TSP ties relative to erstwhile carte-blanche certification. Still, I caution against making too much of this. There is a US-India-rah-rah lobby which, for example, has spun things like the Pressler Amendment as evidence of US sensitivity to Indian concerns, when in reality it was anything but.(2) My other point was regarding this recent, specific situation of Hillary 'waiving' terror reqs to keep TSPA $$ flowing. My point is that this waiver is in no way unique or earth shattering as my friend CRS suggests. It is actually part of the same Congress-Executive dance around TSPA perfidies that has gone on for ages. The only difference, if anything, is that by using the 'waiver' clause vs. a fake 'WE certify TSPA is good' clause, what we are seeing is the clear deterioration of ties.
Again, I see two separate things.(3) Finally, you (and CRS) need to consider that by Congress enacting this requirement, it forced the Executive branch to make a call on decisive TSPA when they are not at that stage. That tail cannot wag the dog here. If you are in a crappy job but are unsure of other opportunities, issuing ultimatums might force you to keep the current job, for example. At the moment, Unkil needs TSPA's ear, so he will pay the baksheesh. That doesn't mean that this is all India driven. The world doesn't revolve around us.
Anyone who proposes rubbing the US the wrong way overtly, when India has so many requirements, has so much to do to meet the aspirations of its ever growing population, is talking of wasting decades of time, which we cannot afford to lose. Right now, take a look at any industry. There are US companies in some part of the value chain as the top dogs, and the rest is made up by their allies (Japan, Korea ) effectively creating a cartel. Net, take on the US & the cartel hits back.matrimc wrote:RD ji,Rudradev wrote:Can we seriously believe there's no US intent to contain India behind all this?
The answer is yes. Sorry if I come across as insensitive but the fact of the matter is India is a collateral damage in US's machinations to remain the world's top dog. I don't think India has any leverage to change US behavior. That needs to be built up and what Shiv ji is proposing - rub the US the wrong way - is not going to cut it. Mind you, I am not saying that we have to roll over and play dead but there is a middle way.
Your frustration with the Indian rulership is widely shared and merits discussion elsewhere. But in this context, shiv is on the right track and I am afraid you are missing the point.Karan M wrote:Virupaksha,Virupaksha wrote:Karan M ji,
calm down and reread what others have said and not said.
Your logic when drilled down to its essentials, because India is not taking any actions against Pakistan, US is justified and infact has taken the correct approach to support Pakistan with arms against India.
and then people wonder why Hakeem ji has so much fun piskoing on this line of thought.
Dear sir, you cannot even understand what I have written (since you have deliberately chosen to misrepresent what i wrote) and want ME to calm down & read what "others have said and not said". Hilarious!!
When will you wake up & realize that India's problems with Pakistan will exist irrespective of the US, or whichever sugar daddy supports Pakistan for a few years?
...