India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 25 Oct 2012 10:13

^^^This is terrible. There have been so many recent kidnappings of children all across the US. Really shameful for a developed country.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Oct 2012 10:14

Mort Walker wrote:^^^ . Really shameful for a developed country.

Can you explain what is a 'developed' country?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Oct 2012 10:31

From the George Friedman article

Many who condemn U.S. hegemony also seem to demand it. There is a shift under way that they have not yet noticed -- except for an absence that they regard as an American failure. My attempt to explain it as the new normal did not always work.

Given that there is a U.S. presidential election under way, this doctrine, which has quietly emerged under Obama, appears to conflict with the views of Mitt Romney, a point I made in a previous article. My core argument on foreign policy is that reality, not presidents or policy papers, makes foreign policy. The United States has entered a period in which it must move from military domination to more subtle manipulation, and more important, allow events to take their course. This is a maturation of U.S. foreign policy, not a degradation. Most important, it is happening out of impersonal forces that will shape whoever wins the U.S. presidential election and whatever he might want. Whether he wishes to increase U.S. assertiveness out of national interest, or to protect human rights, the United States is changing the model by which it operates. Overextended, it is redesigning its operating system to focus on the essentials and accept that much of the world, unessential to the United States, will be free to evolve as it will.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 Oct 2012 06:43

Acharya wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:^^^ . Really shameful for a developed country.
Can you explain what is a 'developed' country?

(Bijlee + pani + sadak) * (elections+governance+ accountability) = developed country

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 26 Oct 2012 22:10

DOnt forget Sandas especially for women

arun · Post by **arun** » 26 Oct 2012 22:11

India's woman in Washington wrestles with tough issues

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 26 Oct 2012 22:20

Corrected:

(Bijlee + pani + sadak + public sandas) * (elections+governance+ accountability) = developed country

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 27 Oct 2012 01:50

Mort Walker wrote:^^^This is terrible. There have been so many recent kidnappings of children all across the US. Really shameful for a developed country.

The baby has been found dead. Killed by 'family friend' who is also Indian.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... 75861.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Oct 2012 01:53

Sorry for the little girl and her grand ma killed by that fool probably inpsired by idiot movies to kidnap her.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 28 Oct 2012 08:14

Nandu wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:^^^This is terrible. There have been so many recent kidnappings of children all across the US. Really shameful for a developed country.
The baby has been found dead. Killed by 'family friend' who is also Indian.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... 75861.html

Good work by the local police.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Oct 2012 18:08

given that we might get a new POTUS soon, does anyone have details on who is romney's chosen foreign policy and defence team should he be elected?

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 28 Oct 2012 18:55

Singha wrote:given that we might get a new POTUS soon, does anyone have details on who is romney's chosen foreign policy and defence team should he be elected?

Romney's strategy is to not give any details..lest he be attacked on it (his campaign said so themselves that it IS their strategy).

I think this will be neocon-2 admin. Pushing neocon agenda at the cost of the 'lazy people who are takers' (those who are not millionaires..

)

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 28 Oct 2012 20:02

I think if Romney wins, he will be extra cautious to take up any Bush-esque projects. he knows that any "aggression" from him and the domestic reality will force a comparison with Bush. I really think he will do anything to stay away from any entanglement in Syria. based on the current American thinking, this might mean that they will try to take out Assad as quick way to ensure "objective achieved". this has already been alluded to here. whether it is Obama or Romney, I think we can expect them to take the shortcut in Syria. neither candidate will have any appetite for any Syrian adventure.

this also means that they will take shortcuts with Pakistan. Obama hasn't fundamentally changed anything wrt Pak. the continued US assistance and aid, whatever the noise they make, has continued without any hickups. this will continue under either Obama-2.0 or Romney-1.0.

my feeling is that US is not looking for any adventure right now. they will play for the status quo, whatever it might be. in their thinking, the Pak policy has "helped them keep the region stable" and this thinking means that is their status-quo. nothing much will change on that front.

as far as India is concerned, it's the same old. Pak will continue to be propped up. neither candidate will budge from that stand.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Oct 2012 02:34

People think geo-politics is chess when its really parchesi!
All the chess players think they can unleash Arab springs and color revolutions and in return are surprised at the sudden turn of unexpected events.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 29 Oct 2012 04:58

Rudradev wrote:This is not "Strategic News" but involves a family which could have been any one of ours.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... 95691.html

If you have any information on the abduction, please call 215-546-TIPS.

http://www.searchindia.com/2012/10/27/t ... -big-time/

Looks like this guy filed for bankruptcy and lost money in gambling.

Yandamuri – Gambling Losses
Unless Yandamuri was lying to the Bankruptcy court, Yandamuri was a big-time gambler.

Yandamuri’s April 10, 2012 bankruptcy filing reveals an interesting disclosure – the young fellow had suffered gambling losses of $50,000 between March 7, 2011 and March 6, 2012 (Source: Statement of Financial Affairs, Page 3, filing signed on March 6, 2012, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California).

That’s a huge gambling loss for a 26-year-old man.

Telugus in America are not given to spending much money.

They usually lead frugal lives and are obsessed with hoarding money.

http://www.telugumuchatlu.com/2012/10/2 ... -to-media/

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Oct 2012 05:10

Self delete

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 29 Oct 2012 07:04

Romney Runs as an Outsider but Makes Room for Lobbyists
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

They have hosted fund-raisers and raised millions of dollars for his campaign. They employed some of his top operatives after his first White House run, helped create the platform for his second bid and have deployed regularly to attack his Republican rivals on the campaign trail.

For a candidate running against the entrenched interests of Washington, Mitt Romney keeps an awful lot of lobbyists around.

His kitchen cabinet includes some of the most prominent Republican lobbyists in Washington, including Charles R. Black Jr., the chairman of Prime Policy Group and a lobbyist for Walmart and AT&T; Wayne L. Berman, who is chairman of Ogilvy Government Relations and represents Pfizer, the drug manufacturer; and Vin Weber, the managing partner for Clark & Weinstock.

At least 294 registered lobbyists donated a total of at least $401,000 to Mr. Romney through the end of 2011, according to a New York Times review of federal disclosure records, while an elite group of 16 “bundlers,” representing interests as varied as Wall Street, Microsoft and the tobacco company Altria, gathered more than $2 million worth of checks from friends and business partners for Mr. Romney’s campaign.

Other lobbyists serve on one of Mr. Romney’s policy advisory teams, have hosted fund-raisers for his campaign or have joined the many influential Republicans whose endorsements Mr. Romney’s campaign has hailed. Among them are David Wilkins, a former United States ambassador to Canada who lobbies for the Canadian oil industry, and Stephen Rademaker, a former State Department official who lobbies for the defense contractor General Dynamics.

Many of the lobbyists advising Mr. Romney, like Mr. Black and Mr. Berman, are veterans of other Republican presidential campaigns, including Senator John McCain’s four years ago.

“These are the people who have made a career at the intersection of policy and presidential campaigns,” said David A. Donnelly, executive director of Public Campaign Action Fund, which advocates for public financing of elections and tracks campaign contributions. “To the extent that Mitt Romney depends on these people, and he gets elected, it’s four more years of business as usual in Washington.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Romney did not respond to requests for comment. In an era when K Street firms serve as holding pens for political operatives and landing pads for retired lawmakers of both parties, the profusion of lobbyists around Mr. Romney’s campaign in part reflects the growing embrace of his candidacy by the Republican establishment, including most of the party’s elite donors and dozens of members of Congress.

His supporters disputed the notion that Mr. Romney’s case against the Washington establishment was undercut by his deep ties to it.

“He does have people who respect him, like him and trust him” in Washington, said Ron Kaufman, who was a senior adviser at the public affairs firm Dutko Grayling until last year and now often travels with Mr. Romney on the campaign trail. “There’s no question of that. But it’s different from being of them — and it’s not going to affect how he will govern.”

Other Republican candidates also count lobbyists among their advisers and donors. And while President Obama does not accept campaign contributions from registered lobbyists, at least 15 of his own bundlers work at lobbying shops or Washington consulting companies but have not registered as lobbyists with the Senate. Those bundlers raised more than $5 million for Mr. Obama’s campaign through September.

Yet as Mr. Romney seeks to highlight his career as a businessman and attacks his chief Republican rivals as “creatures of Washington,” the contrast between his anti-Beltway message and the layers of lobbyists aiding his campaign can be jarring.

Speaking to reporters early Wednesday after Rick Santorum won caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota and the primary in Missouri, Mr. Romney’s senior strategist, Stuart Stevens, remarked, “I just don’t think it’s a time when people are looking to Washington to solve problems with Washington.”

Less than 48 hours later, Mr. Romney’s campaign held an elaborate “policy round table” fund-raiser at a Washington hotel, featuring panel discussions run by lobbyists and former cabinet officials or members of Congress.

James Talent, a former senator who runs the lobbying and public affairs firm Mercury Public Affairs, led a panel on infrastructure, according to an invitation. William Hansen, a former deputy secretary of education who is president of the lobbying firm Chartwell Education Group, led the education panel.

The price for attending the round table: a promise to raise $10,000 for Mr. Romney’s campaign. A photo with Mr. Romney went for $2,500, while a ticket to a general reception later in the evening was $1,000.

An invitation to the event named seven “industry finance chairs” for Mr. Romney’s campaign. They include Thomas F. Farrell II, the president of the Dominion power company and Mr. Romney’s energy industry finance chairman; Brett McMahon, an executive at one of the nation’s leading concrete subcontractors and Mr. Romney’s infrastructure finance chairman; and Patrick Durkin, a Barclays executive who is Mr. Romney’s top lobbyist-bundler and his financial industry finance chairman.

The event attracted hundreds of supporters, many of them lobbyists, and reportedly raised more than $1 million for Mr. Romney’s campaign.

While Mr. Romney’s broad positions on financial regulation, taxes, energy and other issues are shared by other Republican candidates, they have also not infrequently overlapped the interests of his advisers’ clients.

John M. Herrmann II, a co-chairman of Mr. Romney’s trade policy advisory group, is a lobbyist for Allegheny, a major steel producer whose products have figured in United States trade lawsuits against China. Mr. Romney’s platform calls for a more aggressive posture with China on trade, including more “punitive measures to deter unfair Chinese practices.”

Mr. Talent’s firm, Mercury Public Affairs, represents one of the largest coal producers in the country, Peabody Energy. That connection is not disclosed in a commentary that Mr. Talent contributed to Mr. Romney’s energy platform, which calls for increasing production of coal and oil and amending the Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from environmental regulation.

A number of Mr. Romney’s donors, including at least four of his bundlers, have lobbied for financial companies on the Dodd-Frank Act, which tightened Wall Street regulation. Mr. Romney has called for repealing the law.

They include Mr. Berman, who represents the Blackstone Group private equity firm. Blackstone’s founder, Stephen A. Schwarzman, has co-hosted major fund-raisers for Mr. Romney in New York and Palm Beach, Fla., and Blackstone employees donated at least $86,850 to Mr. Romney last year.

Mr. Weber began advising Mr. Romney on foreign policy in August. He is a lobbyist for the Council on Pakistan Relations, which has sought to protect United States aid to Pakistan as relations between the countries have soured.

In a debate in November, Mr. Romney said he wanted the United States to “bring Pakistan into the 21st century” to help the country “engage throughout the world with trade and with modernity.”

In an interview, Mr. Weber said he participated regularly in the campaign’s broad policy discussions, but “I’ve never spoken to Romney or anyone on the campaign about anything related to Pakistan.”

He suggested that Washington lobbyists — many of them with significant experience in the executive branch, on campaigns or on Capitol Hill — would continue to be an important source of advice for candidates.

“At the end of the day, this is the capital city,” said Mr. Weber. “If you want to go someplace to find expertise, it’s probably going to be in Washington. And that’s why candidates look to us — some a little less, some a little bit more.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/us/po ... print&_r=0

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2012 07:38

I think all these obama is pro-poor and romney is pro-rich is all slogans and branding. They are pro-themselves and will kiss whatever constituency or cause helps them get votes like tarun gogoi moving around in a ridiculous karakul cap topped with a yasir arafat headcloth.

No american president is a social revolutionary of the mkg or vivekananda mould. The system ensures only the most foxy creatures get anywhere near the top. High degree of personal charm needed to campaign alone across the nation vs indic system of parliament seats.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Oct 2012 08:54

TIFWIW: fools don't become POTUS. yes, that includes Bush II. it was said that during his time at Yale, if you wanted to get something important done on campus, you went to him to figure out who to go to. he apparently knew the names of every half-significant person on campus, had the "network" to figure out where/when/how big changes would happen before they did. apparently the name-remembering capability carried into his political career. I'll try to find the video but there was a carpenter small-business owner who apparently met Bush in one of the rallies in 2000; apparently, Bush remembered his name and occupation when he again attended a rally in 2004 and got the chance to shake hands with him. the guy was shocked that POTUS had the focus and attention to remember a 1-minute meeting in a rally attended by 1000's even 4 years after it happened...

JMTP's, TIFWIW....all other disclaimers.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 29 Oct 2012 09:36

Singha wrote:I think all these obama is pro-poor and romney is pro-rich is all slogans and branding. They are pro-themselves and will kiss whatever constituency or cause helps them get votes like tarun gogoi moving around in a ridiculous karakul cap topped with a yasir arafat headcloth.

Singha - there is some convergence on some issues, despite the posturing that is necessary in an election cycle. Still, fundamentally there are differences in how they approach tax and spending. Romney camp believes in giving tax cuts to the rich and that will stimulate the economy. Hence the 'they are favoring the rich' criticism which is deserved. Obama camp believes in social programs that offer a net for the bottom lot, that everybody pays for. Since this bottom tends to be minorities, the rich white demography paints Obama has socialist, 'class warrior' etc. Not deserved. There is no equivalency in nuttiness. One party's not perfect. But the other party is just nuts.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Oct 2012 10:07

What I find astonishing about US election is duration. I mean just the whole primary tamasha was almost a year, and jockeying a year before that. Couple that with staggering amount of money spent, latest estimates being upwards of $2 billion. And the end game is all about one TV debate performance, who was more theatrical than the other etc. Mind boggling.

DeveshJi, come on. Fools do become POTUS. One cannot find a more consummate idiot than Ronald Regan before whose portrait Americans will do shastaanga namaskaram. He almost enjoys demi God status. I don't know about Bush II's memory power, but he was a compete bufoon. In general I find dem presidents a bit more cerebral, rep president just mouthpieces of military-industrial complex and Church.

But either way, both mollycoddle TSP which is what sickens me dem or rep.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Oct 2012 11:50

devesh wrote: JMTP's, TIFWIW....all other disclaimers.

I strongly agree devesh-ji.

And yes, all this tagging of socialist vs capitalist is all fair amount of hot air as well -- for all the hoo haa, Obama has done nothing about China (other than bow further) -- the real root behind US debt crises and has instead chosen to tilt against windmills in India.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 29 Oct 2012 12:43

Sanku wrote:
devesh wrote: JMTP's, TIFWIW....all other disclaimers.
I strongly agree devesh-ji.

And yes, all this tagging of socialist vs capitalist is all fair amount of hot air as well -- for all the hoo haa, Obama has done nothing about China (other than bow further) -- the real root behind US debt crises and has instead chosen to tilt against windmills in India.

Welcome Back Sankuji. Missed your posts a lot

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 29 Oct 2012 13:19

^^ Yes, glad that Sankuji is back posting.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 29 Oct 2012 13:56

devesh wrote:TIFWIW: fools don't become POTUS. yes, that includes Bush II. it was said that during his time at Yale, if you wanted to get something important done on campus, you went to him to figure out who to go to. he apparently knew the names of every half-significant person on campus, had the "network" to figure out where/when/how big changes would happen before they did. apparently the name-remembering capability carried into his political career. I'll try to find the video but there was a carpenter small-business owner who apparently met Bush in one of the rallies in 2000; apparently, Bush remembered his name and occupation when he again attended a rally in 2004 and got the chance to shake hands with him. the guy was shocked that POTUS had the focus and attention to remember a 1-minute meeting in a rally attended by 1000's even 4 years after it happened...

JMTP's, TIFWIW....all other disclaimers.

Yep, agree with you completely here. President Bush Jr. did some impressive acting to pretend to be a dumb country hick, but he's a pretty smart man in reality. That amiable country boy attitude that he puts on is all acting. Even his opponents concur that he is extremely street-smart.

Besides, he got into Yale and later, Harvard's MBA program and graduated from both schools. This was all at a time when his father was still not really a political heavyweight of any sort and family connections wouldn't have helped him graduate anyway, so we know he actually studied and passed all his exams fair and square. New Yorker magazine published his SAT score in a 1999 article before election and it was actually very good (he had a score that put him in the top 5 percentile). People who've actually worked with him behind closed doors have reported that he's much smarter than what he shows on TV.

Impressions from a guy that worked with him personally

Pretty funny article, but contains some actual facts: http://www.cracked.com/article_15130_5- ... think.html

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Oct 2012 15:11

Thank you rkiran ji and lilo-ji; being in BRF is like being among friends now, and I truly appreciate the good will and courtesy extended by folks (even as we clash hotly on various issues)

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 29 Oct 2012 17:51

Welcome back sanku ji

They the topi wallahs at maverick world were with out much to exercise their little intellect in your absence on this forum.

More power to the cheddi wallahs

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Oct 2012 17:59

pentaiah wrote: More power to the cheddi wallahs

Thank you Pentaiah-ji.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 29 Oct 2012 18:02

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan started the decline of US power.
The intellect in Republican Party is rapidly sublimating there no melting point directly vanishing
And jokers like mitt who have no clue beyond the borders of Mass are indeed dangerous to the world peace and equilibrium.
The fanatics of republican put to shame the Taliban, yes of course Ronald Reagan mid wifed them too
So no wonder the republicans are into full scale crusades
Remember GW funded the NGOs to convert the Indians into mechanized process.
Just look at the statistics

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 29 Oct 2012 19:22

CRamS wrote:
But either way, both mollycoddle TSP which is what sickens me dem or rep.

There is one exception to this i.e if he would ever be President. Ron Paul. He is the only one candidate whose campaign pledged to stop the enemy acts that US is waging against India( by stopping crucial and critical military aid to Pakistan ).

I have always wondered why Indian Americans never supported him in strength. But then maybe the interests of Indians and Indian-Americans are different. And the security of India is probably very low on the priority list of an average Indian-American. This is in sharp contrast to Jewish or the Chinese diaspora who do their utmost to advance Israel's and China's interests respectively.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 29 Oct 2012 20:56

I like Ron Paul
And I wish he gets more traction than these two parties which have been co opted by billionaires and special interest lobbies

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 29 Oct 2012 22:53

ArmenT, what benefit would Bush Jr get by playing dumb? I don't see any use for that.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Oct 2012 23:05

there is some discussion going on in another thread about the Saud links with Clinton and Clinton's special role in legitimizing Islamic demands in Europe.

let us step out of this Dem vs Rep nonsense and think clearly if there is actually any difference at all between the two, when it comes to important issues like how they deal with Islamics? if they are willing to cut any and all deals with the Islamists to screw the non-proselytizing "religions"? we see that both are equally willing and eager to make such deals. right from FDR, we see consistently that every US President hasn't given a rats ass about non-Muslims being butchered or harassed by Muslims. on the contrary, they've tried to take advantage of this Islamic behavior. in recent decades, Carter, Regan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have all shown the willingness to compromise with Jihadis even if it screws over the non-Muslims.

let us stop hero-worshiping Obama or Romney or Clinton or anybody else. and let us not fall for the media tricks of American domestic politics.

I will stick to my basic assessment though about American Presidents: they don't get there by being fools or "dumb rednecks".

Madhusudhan · Post by **Madhusudhan** » 29 Oct 2012 23:14

KJoishy wrote:ArmenT, what benefit would Bush Jr get by playing dumb? I don't see any use for that.

Votes - Many American people especially in the heartland distrust Intelligent sounding people...

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 30 Oct 2012 00:23

darshhan wrote:
I have always wondered why Indian Americans never supported him in strength. But then maybe the interests of Indians and Indian-Americans are different. And the security of India is probably very low on the priority list of an average Indian-American. This is in sharp contrast to Jewish or the Chinese diaspora who do their utmost to advance Israel's and China's interests respectively.

Yes and no. For example, the Chinese rulers are currently pretty miffed at the US ambassador Gary Locke, who is an American of Chinese descent, for among other things, sheltering dissidents. Unkil has played a trump card on tweaking the Politburo's nose with this appointment.
http://www.pri.org/stories/world/asia/f ... a5858.html

Again, by and large, Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans and Jewish-Americans generally would support US interests when there is an obvious and irreconcilable clash with Indian, Chinese or Israeli interests.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 30 Oct 2012 03:08

at the risk of being OT:

ArmenT wrote:Besides, he got into Yale and later, Harvard's MBA program and graduated from both schools. This was all at a time when his father was still not really a political heavyweight of any sort ...

WOW..ArmenT ji..this vis-a-vis Dubya...must be quite a sarcasm

that may have gone unnoticed by Devesh garu or do you really believe this?

If later, it calls for doing some searches on the following strings:
[*]Prescott Bush and/or Union Banking Corporation,
[*]Zapata Oil
[*]misguided anti-castro cubans and/or Bay of Pigs
[*]Edgar Hoover FBI Memo and Bush
[*]Bush Sr and FBI phone call on 11-22-63

Yes...it is absolutely all CT or may be not

.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 31 Oct 2012 03:34

Somewhere I had read that George W passed the MBA from Harvard BS with a C average grade. This is strange as B is the passing grade in masters program. But it is clear that he got into Harvard due to his family. Read:
http://www.salon.com/2004/09/16/tsurumi/
His former Harvard Business School professor recalls George W. Bush not just as a terrible student but as spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar.......
Gautam

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Oct 2012 08:53

During the time 'W' was at Harvard starting in the fall semester of 1973 his father 'H.W.' was chairman of the Republican National Committee, then US ambassador to China. He was director of the CIA in the Ford administration. The Ivy League schools pick up children of those who are in power because it will be those people who enrich the Ivys with big endowments.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 31 Oct 2012 17:43

Why are people going after G.W here? Sheesh!

He is not in power and when he was, he did right by India. They would prefer a pro China, Pro Paki Lefty I suppose.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 01 Nov 2012 00:31

Manny-ji, I agree, but it is hard to argue that, in spite of the nuclear deal, GWB was not pro-Paki. They became munna during his tenure, and don't forget the Mush-Bush embrace.