C-17s for the IAF?

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 27 Mar 2010 01:23

you can see just to buy 10 transport aircrafts (that too with our hard earned cash)
we need to change the way we live and our constitution.
I dont know what else will be required to change if we have nearly a third of our multiroles made in USA.

i still can't belive it, GOI actually allowed all this.
Requirement or not!, nothing can justify US laws to override indian laws for Indian people on Indian Soil.
This is simply wrong.

I would seriously like to see these toys ever be able to help in getting back POK and the so called actual usage against our eastern front.

Will this heavy lift birds be able to inject our troops , say if some gutsy Indian PM (the last we had was a female btw) decides to take back POK
or say boeings f-18 shoot amraams (in reality no simulation please) to take out paki f-16s. i doubt that.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Mar 2010 01:42

chiragAS wrote: i still can't belive it, GOI actually allowed all this.
Requirement or not!, nothing can justify US laws to override indian laws for Indian people on Indian Soil.
This is simply wrong.

Hold your horses. No deal regarding the C-17s has been signed yet.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 27 Mar 2010 01:56

Munna is right, India unlike the US does not have 2 classes of citizens (natural born and naturalized). Hence discrimination by place of birth is unconstitutional in India.

That is the reason even a naturalized citizen can become the President in India, but not in the US. That is why the US can discriminate between different classes of citizens and India cannot.

As regards women in the forces, there are women serving in the forces, but just like any merit based service the armed forces have certain base-lines wrt physical capability or medical availability for combat duties. Since the Constitution does not set these physical or medical standards the respective services set these standards within the guidelines of the Constitution. The armed forces have changed combat duties for male personnel based on the same standards (physical/medical) as are applied to women and men equally. Since a single set of standards are applied there are no constitutional repercussions as far as women in combat are concerned.

ITAR will force the armed forces to apply 2 different standards for its personnel, unlike the above case where is single standard is applied to all personnel. That is unconstitutional since the Constitution of India does not recognize a super-set or sub-set of citizens.

---added later---

Lets put it this way.

A citizens place of birth is specifically addressed by the Constitution and discrimination based on this criteria is specifically prohibited.

A citizens physical or medical condition for service in the armed forces are not addressed by the Constitution, hence physical/medical conditions for service in any capacity is set by the institution. As long as these standards are applied to all aspirants equally, regardless of birthplace, sex, religion, social status and adherence to other Constitutional rights these base-lines are constitutional.

If the armed forces did not allow a particular set of citizens to join the army at all - it would be unconstitutional. If OTOH those citizens after joining the armed forces are not able to meet the base-lines set for service in a particular capacity (say combat) it is not unconstitutional. However if those same citizens did meet those standards and the armed forces did not allow them to serve, then that would be unconstitutional. This particular scenario has not come up as yet to my knowledge.

Trust that clarifies your misunderstandings of the Indian Constitution.

munna · Post by **munna** » 27 Mar 2010 02:32

GeorgeWelch wrote:
munna al constitutionii wrote:Now, to what degree can the courts set doctrines for armed forces personnel? Remains to be seen!
Thus you admit it is possible ITAR passes constitutional muster.

Georgeji there is a difference between armed forces declaring a level of fitness as mandatory for certain applications and a foreign country telling the armed forces to exclude certain categories of citizens. Eg there is a certain height below which an individual cannot be selected for certain regiments. A case in point being the President's Bodyguard regiment, they are all a minimum of 6 feet of height. Now one may go on and say that this is discrimination but clearly its a question of "who should man which post?". The case about ITAR is that if we do not have a doctrinal requirement to exclude a citizen from a particular role why should we take orders from other country? Our armed forces do not discriminate, infact they are the only wing of governance that is reservations free. Standards of fitness and operational requirements are not equal to discrimination.

Hypothetical scenarios:

1) What if ITAR is modified tomorrow to exclude all Kashmiris or Arunachalis under pressure from China and Pakistan?
2) What if US signs a peace and cooperation treaty with China and Pakistan and declares them friendly countries? Who are we going to use the planes against? Timbuktu?
3) What if they require us to station our planes at a particular base?

George I hope you understand that its not the merit of the plane being debated here. I am pretty sure that C-17 must be a rock star of a machine but at the end of the day we have to be wary about our interests. The road block faced by C-17 and in fact all other US machines is political and not technical. You guys produce some of the finest technologies out there but what can we do with them if they come in such a contrained format?

PS: I have not read the document but would love to skim through it at leisure. If an agreement goes to the extent of specifying the pilots of the planes then I am pretty sure they may have other severe operational contraints built into the sales agreement.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 27 Mar 2010 03:44

georgeji is not here to understand us I think.

Here is the bottom line.

- 10 aircraft will cost us 13,500 crore.

- These aircraft can be sanctioned at any time based on US national interest. The US is unwilling to guarantee these aircraft will never be sanctioned. It is completely stupid to pay money to a seller and not be granted complete control over what we purchased.

- Would anyone ever buy a car which has a EULA stating only family members who were born in the house can ever use or repair this car? You will never let your adopted son drive or repair this car. Furthermore the EULA also states you may only drive the car to destinations A, B & C - we like destination P so you may not use this car to drive to destination P since they are our friends. We don't want you showing off "your" new car to your old friends "I" so you will not allow them into your garage, or drive over to their house, or use it to help them if needed. Oh, BTW if we don't like what you do or say (it need not be directly connected to this particular purchase - it means everything you say or do in the future), we will not sell you any more spare parts, and during the time that you are in our bad books, we will also tell our friends L, M, N & U to not sell you any spare parts as well as confiscate this car if you ever enter their garages. In addition you can only buy spare parts from us, and we want you to be thankful we sold this car to you. This is exactly what we will get after spending 13,500 crore.

- These aircraft were selected by the IAF without competitive bidding.

- These aircraft have dodgy claims about performance - as anyone reading this dhaga will understand.

- These aircraft will need a completely new and separate maintenance line - for eg our metric '10 number pana' is different from the imperial 3/8ths used by the US. So every base these aircraft operate out of will have to have a completely incompatible new set of tools in place. Anyone willing to pay $499.99 for a single spanner? If by-chance the IL76 maintenance requires a tool which is unavailable, you could probably go outside the base gates and borrow a suitable 'pana' from the scooter mechanic. The C17 does not have this luxury. All our metric tools can be used across all other aircraft we have, now we will have to spend crores more just so we can have effective maintenance for these potential hangar queens.

- These aircraft use different hydraulic fluids than the Russian equipment, so if after landing there is a fluid leak in the undercarriage of a Russian aircraft you just use the hydraulic fluids already in stock from other Russian aircraft. If the C17 develops a hydraulic leak it means waiting for those fluids to come from Agra, or keeping kilolitres of hydraulic fluids in every base those aircraft will visit, or carrying it with the aircraft.

- These aircraft will cost 2000 crore to 3000 crore more than cheaper Russian alternatives. I would rather those 2-3000 crores are used within India.

- We don't need this strategic lift within India as cheaper alternatives are already in place, and we don't need to be expeditionary abroad. Which country are we going to attack other than Pakistan if ever? Their road and rail systems are as good as ours. And meager 10 aircraft is definitely not the strategic lift capacity for the size of the armed forces India maintains.

- We have no interest in policing our neighbours. Any poll at any time will show most Indians would be satisfied if the Pakistanis just left us alone, even if we have to beat them into leaving us alone. That is about the only aggressive feelings we have against any country. We have no interest to spread "our way of life" to our neighbours. Most Indians will tell you "to each his own". So where are we going to use these expensive aircraft?

-13,500 crore will build 13,500 primary schools and fund them for about 5 years - that's 22-23 new primary schools in every district of India. Which is more important on the grand scale of things?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Mar 2010 04:25

chiragAS wrote:you can see just to buy 10 transport aircrafts (that too with our hard earned cash)
we need to change the way we live and our constitution.

Not at all. Where the military chooses to assign people isn't discrimination and thus has nothing to do with the constitution.

However you forget, you have already bought the P-8I and C-130J, so this has already been resolved.

The C-17 purchase wouldn't introduce anything new that hadn't been dealt with before.

chiragAS wrote:i still can't belive it, GOI actually allowed all this.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth here over NOTHING is truly epic.

No one is being discriminated against, so it's not an issue.

chiragAS wrote:Will this heavy lift birds be able to inject our troops , say if some gutsy Indian PM (the last we had was a female btw) decides to take back POK
or say boeings f-18 shoot amraams (in reality no simulation please) to take out paki f-16s.

yes and yes

Shalav wrote:the same standards (physical/medical) as are applied to women and men equally.

Clearly that's not true because women are not being assigned to certain responsibilities SOLELY because of their gender, not for any physical or medical reason.

Again I would argue that choosing not to assign women to combat aircraft isn't discrimination in the first place. Now that we've established the military can use arbitrary criteria for assigning people, country of birth becomes just one more criteria they can use.

Shalav wrote:there is a difference between armed forces declaring a level of fitness

This has nothing to do with 'fitness', it has to do with an arbitrary decision by the military. And apparently such arbitrary assignments are ok.

The IAF Vice Air Chief has made it clear it has nothing to do with fitness

http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv279/jabar1/IAF.jpg

He cites financial, operational and cultural constraints. He explicitly says "Anyone can fly a fighter"

So clearly, such decisions ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.

munna wrote: 1) What if ITAR is modified tomorrow to exclude all Kashmiris or Arunachalis

There is no country of Kashmir or Arunachal.

For someone who claims to be a legal expert, you certainly miss a lot.

munna wrote: 2) What if US signs a peace and cooperation treaty with China and Pakistan and declares them friendly countries? Who are we going to use the planes against? Timbuktu?

You are always allowed to use them in defense. Since people have repeatedly pointed out that India is not an expeditionary country, this shouldn't be an issue, right?

munna wrote:3) What if they require us to station our planes at a particular base?

There is no such requirement.

munna wrote:but at the end of the day we have to be wary about our interests.

You also need to have a modicum of common sense.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 27 Mar 2010 04:31

GeorgeWelch wrote:You also need to have a modicum of common sense.

Yup, after being at the receiving end of US sanctions multiple times and seeing the billions of free aid to pakistan by US, if one thinks we should still go in for big US defence purchases, we are truly short of common sense!!

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 27 Mar 2010 04:33

georgeji

Commonsense says, paying 13,500 crore for a sanction prone aircraft for which there is no particular use or specific advantage, is stupid.

Nair · Post by **Nair** » 27 Mar 2010 04:47

The IAF don't think so...and they are supposed to do the fighting. They seem to think the "sanction prone" bird works just fine.

munna · Post by **munna** » 27 Mar 2010 04:53

GeorgeWelch wrote:
munna wrote: 1) What if ITAR is modified tomorrow to exclude all Kashmiris or Arunachalis
There is no country of Kashmir or Arunachal.

For someone who claims to be a legal expert, you certainly miss a lot. Well I apologize for not being precise enough. You see the two states mentioned by me are disputed by our neighbors, I did not mention other states. US may as very well have issues with citizens from these states being designated as Indians at all! Even as recently as last year your president tried to appoint a Cashmere envoy. Grant it US has a history of meddling in territorial disputes of India and continues to do so behind the scenes

munna wrote: 2) What if US signs a peace and cooperation treaty with China and Pakistan and declares them friendly countries? Who are we going to use the planes against? Timbuktu?
You are always allowed to use them in defense. Since people have repeatedly pointed out that India is not an expeditionary country, this shouldn't be an issue, right?
Again, weapons are not bought for a constrained set of possibilities. They exist to be used in ANY which way possible. The buzz word here is constraints
munna wrote:3) What if they require us to station our planes at a particular base?
There is no such requirement. If we accept some stipulations there is nothing that stops new ones from being introduced

munna wrote:but at the end of the day we have to be wary about our interests.
You also need to have a modicum of common sense. Can't say much about this

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Mar 2010 05:10

munna wrote:US may as very well have issues with citizens from these states being designated as Indians at all!

Do you just enjoy making stuff up?

munna wrote:Even as recently as last year your president tried to appoint a Cashmere envoy.

Oh the horror.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/he-co ... ir/381599/

munna wrote:If we accept some stipulations there is nothing that stops new ones from being introduced

Are you sure you have any legal credentials?

I just have to ask because I find your lack of understanding rather appalling.

The stipulations are set up WHEN THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED. There might be a variable such as 'countries on the State Department list of X', but basic conditions cannot be changed.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Mar 2010 05:29

putnanja wrote:Yup, after being at the receiving end of US sanctions multiple times

How many times is 'multiple'?

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 27 Mar 2010 06:01

Lets see

1974
1998

ISRO - still in force
DRDO - still in force
DAE - not sure if still in force
L&T - still in force
Indian Navy Sea King Helicopters sent to the UK for overhaul
Multiple other specific entities still in force - I'll leave you to inquire about those.

Nair,

So what if the IAF wants it - they want a lot of things. India needs that money elsewhere.

What is the use to the country for such expensive toys? What strategic need does it fulfill, that it completely overrides taking a 13,500 crore risk.

I'm sure it works fine, so what! That's not the issue.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 27 Mar 2010 06:25

There was one other article by a US strategic analyst recently which was posted in MRCA thread I think, which basically said that having India buy more US arms will provide a leverage to US too.

Nair · Post by **Nair** » 27 Mar 2010 06:48

Shalav wrote:Lets see

1974
1998

ISRO - still in force
DRDO - still in force
DAE - not sure if still in force
L&T - still in force
Indian Navy Sea King Helicopters sent to the UK for overhaul
Multiple other specific entities still in force - I'll leave you to inquire about those.

Nair,

So what if the IAF wants it - they want a lot of things. India needs that money elsewhere.

What is the use to the country for such expensive toys? What strategic need does it fulfill, that it completely overrides taking a 13,500 crore risk.

I'm sure it works fine, so what! That's not the issue.

No I mean you are saying that the aircraft can't be used properly and that it is sanction prone...but the IAF the end user who will do all the fighting seems to have no problem with all these operational issues.
If your opposition is on political grounds then it is fine but that is another matter..

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 27 Mar 2010 07:08

That still leaves open the question what will they be used for?

We DO NOT need the long range strategic lift capacity these aircraft provide. That is policy and policy is not made by the military it is always made by the civilian govt. So you see their purchase is an operational issue. What use is this purchase for? is a very legitimate question any citizen is entitled to ask.

Cheaper, maybe less capable, alternatives exist, and as long as those alternatives exist there should a competition for our 13,500 crore. That money is not free money, it is ours and we should be prudent how we spend it. The IAF is not the last word is what is purchased, their wishes must be given their due weightage, but not at the cost of squandering money on sanction prone "leases" of equipment. If after weighing all alternatives it turns out that the IAF has to "make do", so be it, like all of us in India have had to "make do" at one time or the other.

Domestically other cheaper and more established logistics are already emplaced or are in the process.

munna · Post by **munna** » 27 Mar 2010 07:08

GeorgeWelch wrote:
munna wrote:US may as very well have issues with citizens from these states being designated as Indians at all!
Do you just enjoy making stuff up?

munna wrote:Even as recently as last year your president tried to appoint a Cashmere envoy.
Oh the horror.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/he-co ... ir/381599/

I don't make things up. The things you are dismissing with roll of eyes are treated with utmost importance in Delhi. We have faced previously and continue to face unwanted interference regarding our territories.

munna wrote:If we accept some stipulations there is nothing that stops new ones from being introduced
Are you sure you have any legal credentials?

I just have to ask because I find your lack of understanding rather appalling.

The stipulations are set up WHEN THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED. There might be a variable such as 'countries on the State Department list of X', but basic conditions cannot be changed.

Any "legal expert" worth the paper his business card is printed on will laugh away your claims. Take this, India and US concluded an extradition treaty that was supposed to overarch other national laws and ensure that criminals from one nation did not enjoy immunity in another one. And what happened when US found THE terrorist responsible for Mumbai 26/11? It proceeded to deny and stymie any access for India to this enemy of the nation. Are you suggesting US will respect a two bit commercial contract that is non-justiciable and non-guaranteed (by third party adjudicated penalty clauses) any more than a full fledged "Indo-US Extradition Treaty"? There is no scope for "new" stipulations under this treaty too but guess what-all it takes for a person to get immunity from India is a plea bargain with a sub-national court in US. Phoooey "the contract"

US has trouble keeping a treaty in good faith and you believe it will respect a mere super-duper iron clad contract. Its a nice bit of legal prose and nothing else. Any legal instrument is not worth the paper it is printed on unless there is a neutral authority to enforce it. The power to enforce any such contract lies with US and it offers no support to India.

PS: I appreciate that you are curious about my competence but can you please care to explain the fact that US considers any other law/treaty/contract subject to its own interpretations without caring a fig for others.

Nair · Post by **Nair** » 27 Mar 2010 07:30

Shalav wrote:That still leaves open the question what will they be used for?

We DO NOT need the long range strategic lift capacity these aircraft provide. That is policy and policy is not made by the military it is always made by the civilian govt. So you see their purchase is an operational issue. What use is this purchase for? is a very legitimate question any citizen is entitled to ask.

Cheaper, maybe less capable, alternatives exist, and as long as those alternatives exist there should a competition for our 13,500 crore. That money is not free money, it is ours and we should be prudent how we spend it. The IAF is not the last word is what is purchased, their wishes must be given their due weightage, but not at the cost of squandering money on sanction prone "leases" of equipment. If after weighing all alternatives it turns out that the IAF has to "make do", so be it, like all of us in India have had to "make do" at one time or the other.

Domestically other cheaper and more established logistics are already emplaced or are in the process.

If I had to guess then the reason would be to replenish the north east in case the chicken neck has been cut...the money for the C-17 is part of the IAF budget. If they want to spend it on the C-17 then I don't see the problem.

Mr_Li · Post by **Mr_Li** » 27 Mar 2010 09:24

C17 good machine.
But it is not meant for Chicken's Neck.

As you would know, even if it is 16km wide, Chicken Neck is near Yadong Valley. which is a mountenous road. Railways are planned there but only for culture and not for battle war.

Don't be paranoid because of thin land strip can be cut off.
Remember that below CN is bangladesh land occupied by
minorities and that land is fair game in war so the Chicken
Neck is just cartographiccal illusion.

BTW barley wine is good in Yadong. As it was on offer for
export to India but did not ferment to success.

- Mr. Li

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Mar 2010 09:31

Shalav wrote:That still leaves open the question what will they be used for?.

For an answer to this one has to plough through about 3 of my uploaded videos - arguably among the least viewed on YouTube. Not entertaning, but informative about what the IAFs transport needs are:

Southern Air Command - 3 videos (1, 2 and 3 in order)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTXGiTxz6c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC-KAF8wQo8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyPeZxa5asY

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Mar 2010 10:40

Shalav wrote:What use is this purchase for? is a very legitimate question any citizen is entitled to ask.

Move items that won't fit in an Il-76.

Shalav wrote:Cheaper, maybe less capable, alternatives exist

There is nothing cheaper that will accomplish the goal.

Shalav wrote:as long as those alternatives exist

There are no alternatives in production.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Mar 2010 11:06

munna wrote:I don't make things up

Then please provide documentation of the US not considering people from there citizens of India.

munna wrote:The things you are dismissing with roll of eyes are treated with utmost importance in Delhi.

Sending someone to try to facilitate talks on the issue is hardly threatening. If you don't want to talk, don't talk.

Take this, India and US concluded an extradition treaty that was supposed to overarch other national laws and ensure that criminals from one nation did not enjoy immunity in another one. And what happened when US found THE terrorist responsible for Mumbai 26/11? It proceeded to deny and stymie any access for India to this enemy of the nation. Are you suggesting US will respect a two bit commercial contract that is non-justiciable and non-guaranteed (by third party adjudicated penalty clauses) any more than a full fledged "Indo-US Extradition Treaty"? There is no scope for "new" stipulations under this treaty too but guess what-all it takes for a person to get immunity from India is a plea bargain with a sub-national court in US. Phoooey "the contract"

[EDITED - BE NICE]

Let us examine the text of treaty.

Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted
or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition
is requested.

Now from the every reliable wiki.

On December 8, 2009, the FBI additionally accused Headley of conspiring to bomb targets in Mumbai, India; providing material support to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a militant Pakistani Islamist group; and aiding and abetting the murder of U.S. citizens in the 2008 Mumbai attacks.[2]

Headley pleaded guilty to all charges on March 18, 2010

He faces life in prison and a three million dollar fine when he is sentenced.

In other words, the treaty was upheld.

PS: I appreciate that you are curious about my competence

I am no longer curious. It is clear you are not.

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 27 Mar 2010 18:31

However you forget, you have already bought the P-8I and C-130J

That is why i said our stupid GOI actually allowed all this dirty agreements to be put on us.

chiragAS wrote:
Will this heavy lift birds be able to inject our troops , say if some gutsy Indian PM (the last we had was a female btw) decides to take back POK
or say boeings f-18 shoot amraams (in reality no simulation please) to take out paki f-16s.

GeorgeWelch wrote:
yes and yes

Yes and yes (Obama style) doesn't instill confidence. in the 70s they send a US nuclear warship to help its lover boy pakis.
recently during the kargil conflict your president made sure all those intruding pakis get safe passage, otherwise i bet IAF or IA was not in any mood to allow them go back in one piece.
Now US is funding them to fight terrorists (

while paki army is known to train them even now)
US is arming them F-16s (LM officials were saying oh India need not worry we are giving them block 52 and India can have 60

)
if we ever go to war again with pakis( i mean full blown war) we will want to make this the final one
US love afair with pakis is legendary and i dont think US will ever allow us to take back POK.
as for COK Obama will bend over backwards to please the chinese.

May be we can use c-17s for airshows.

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 27 Mar 2010 18:58

^^^^^
absolutely agree with you....

We should very clearly understand that.....when dealing with US that for INDIA, US's policies change as per their Presidents and while for Pukistan, its always like a lover boy....from 1948 .US is not against Terrorism and never was infact, it has interest only in OIL and keeping its ARM industry running. ultimately Talibans are product of amarica...

munna · Post by **munna** » 27 Mar 2010 19:03

Munna wrote:Take this, India and US concluded an extradition treaty that was supposed to overarch other national laws and ensure that criminals from one nation did not enjoy immunity in another one. And what happened when US found THE terrorist responsible for Mumbai 26/11? It proceeded to deny and stymie any access for India to this enemy of the nation. Are you suggesting US will respect a two bit commercial contract that is non-justiciable and non-guaranteed (by third party adjudicated penalty clauses) any more than a full fledged "Indo-US Extradition Treaty"? There is no scope for "new" stipulations under this treaty too but guess what-all it takes for a person to get immunity from India is a plea bargain with a sub-national court in US. Phoooey "the contract"

Please re-read my post carefully and I mean carefully. The precise words stand underlined and indicate the banality of your argument. The question here was of access and legal help in preparing the grounds for his extradition. We wanted access to him before he got convicted. Coming back to the treaty if you were to read and quote little bit more:

Ze Treaty wrote:Each Contracting State shall, to the extent permitted by its law, afford the other the widest measure of mutual assistance in criminal matters in connection with an offense for which extradition has been requested

To build a case and delineate the activities he was involved in we needed access to this man but India was denied the same. Despite the public statements of various functionaries India has not been granted access. We asked for access since November and Headley got convicted or rather gained immunity in March-to prevent extradition. There is something called "Good Faith" (please re-read my previous post as it included the term) and US has consistently lacked this in its dealings with India. I hope you don't ask me to recount the case of "missing detonators(?)" of Mumbai Blasts of early 1990s which US deliberately suppressed to save Pakis.

Like I said before any legal instrument signed between US and India can be only interpreted one way and that is the US way. Nothing we can do about it-its US sweet will to do as it pleases.

Georgewelch wrote:In other words, the treaty was upheld.

and I am Manmohan Singh. Headley has been saved by the US.
--------------

Added Later
India pushes for access to Headley, Pakistani American tied to Mumbai plot

India is demanding unfettered access to David C. Headley, an American citizen who pleaded guilty in a U.S. court last week to scouting targets for the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

New Delhi's interest in interrogating Headley is causing a diplomatic rift with the United States. American diplomats have offered conflicting signals on whether Indian investigators will be able to question Headley, 49, a Pakistani American who has agreed to provide the United States with intelligence about possible future terrorist targets.
.....
That has infuriated many Indians, who are quick to note that India let the FBI interrogate Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone surviving gunman in the Mumbai attacks.

"Since the Mumbai attacks claimed the lives of six Americans, the FBI felt it had an automatic entitlement to that meeting. But the murder of more than a hundred Indians in the same attack, one that left India naked and vulnerable forever, does not apparently give us the same right," Barkha Dutt, a national talk show host, said in a recent column in the Hindustan Times.

George please read how we provided access to FBI in "Good Faith". You can keep harping on your interpretation of legalities-but its not for nothing that lawyers exist (they are there to provide "n" interpretations of the same law). I am trying to highlight the manner in which your own government is subverting the political and trust capital built in Delhi over the past 5 years. If you agree with this deconstruction then keep calling me or other board member names.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 27 Mar 2010 20:25

munna wrote:
Munna wrote:Take this, India and US concluded an extradition treaty that was supposed to overarch other national laws and ensure that criminals from one nation did not enjoy immunity in another one. And what happened when US found THE terrorist responsible for Mumbai 26/11? It proceeded to deny and stymie any access for India to this enemy of the nation. Are you suggesting US will respect a two bit commercial contract that is non-justiciable and non-guaranteed (by third party adjudicated penalty clauses) any more than a full fledged "Indo-US Extradition Treaty"? There is no scope for "new" stipulations under this treaty too but guess what-all it takes for a person to get immunity from India is a plea bargain with a sub-national court in US. Phoooey "the contract"
Please re-read my post carefully and I mean carefully.

My apologies on missing that part, I was focusing on:

munna wrote:all it takes for a person to get immunity from India is a plea bargain with a sub-national court in US

Clearly he did not get 'immunity', he's going to be sentenced to life in prison.

And that part was in accordance with the treaty.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 27 Mar 2010 20:49

With all due respect I really dont see what we are going to do with Head ley (less)... He will be looked in US more as a troubled kid who went rogue... he is not the first American, wont be the last.. many b4 have gone into illicit trade etc and been used by see eye a et al

Lets say he tells us name,address,tel no of PA folks involved... tells us which mosque they go, which mulla they eat paan with and which corner they paint laal with that paan... wot r we gonna do huh? Yahudi style dubai room service ? no.. we will prepare dossier and send it to Gilani bhai to spit more paan into.... or make a bigg chardgesheet in our court....will take eons to type and eons to read ... The only thing we need to do is tighten our visa process and reduce aman ki aasha kind of stuff ... and rather thank him for making us aware of our naivete....

Regarding extradition treaty etc.. i think US is following ok.... understand they started concept of pre-nup in marriages.. so dont expect too much love in their friendship... ever wonder y see eye a keeps mos(t)sad at arms length if they can... in that sense we can learn frm across the jhelum how they make the khans bend backwards....

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 27 Mar 2010 21:23

GeorgeWelch wrote: Clearly he did not get 'immunity', he's going to be sentenced to life in prison.

And that part was in accordance with the treaty.

You are still not getting it. It is not just that he will be punished. The reason the US doesn't want to give full access to Indian investigators is that if Headley gives the full information of all the Army and ISI of pakistan involved in mumbai attacks, pakistan can no longer claim it was done by non-state actors. US wants to protect pakistan at all costs and keep up the facade of "non state actors performing terrorist attacks to damage indo-pak relations" and the oft-repeated "pakistan is also victim of terrorist attcks".

We don't like any mediator or facilitator.as the US would want to impost its own solution on India. US is not a honest broker. And US is not such a benign innocent superpower that you make it out to be. Perhaps you need to understand US interference in South Asia and how much it has contributed to the current situation.

The US by its past actions, and its current ones under Obama has proven that it is not a reliable country, and it is willing to use whatever leverage it can to push its agenda. And big ticket defence items are one such lever in US arsenal. The US has to address this mistrust, which it has failed to do so far. The Bush adminstration tried, but Obama is rolling it back. And we shouldn't be worrying about what the future US presidents will do given the way US works.

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 27 Mar 2010 23:18

a interesting survey :
sorry dont have the link rightnow, but as per survey 61% amarikan belives Obama is a Fool..
i support that 61%

, and will also like to see MM along with Obama , if still after all this, denial for Hedley, Arm sell to Pukis..etc..., GI agrees to purchase any more mil. hardware from amrikan..

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 Mar 2010 12:07

sunilpatel wrote:a interesting survey :
sorry dont have the link rightnow, but as per survey 61% amarikan belives Obama is a Fool..
i support that 61% , and will also like to see MM along with Obama , if still after all this, denial for Hedley, Arm sell to Pukis..etc..., GI agrees to purchase any more mil. hardware from amrikan..

Sunil the situation is so twisted. Now americans have voted for and elected Obama to the office though they think he is a fool. Indians think MM as economic genius, but won't elect him, the guy had to sneak through Rajya Sabha.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 29 Mar 2010 16:52

George,
people have convincingly (atleast to me) given an explanation to your remarks on "discrimination on basis of sex" in armed forces. Whatever way you try to spin it, it is discriminatory. Gilles has given the example of Canada. This is likely to happen in India too.

I am fully convinced that C-17 is the best plane for the role it is supposed to perform and would fully support its acquisition if such restrictions are withdrawn.

Regarding Headley, Marten has given a very apt comment on the lack of good faith on part of US in their actions.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Mar 2010 15:33

Many members have well said it,that access to Headley/Gilani will uncover the entire US-ISI-LET-Talib-whatever connections.The US has to protect its rent-boy and so Gilani/Headley is denied to India.In such a situ,the GOI should simply say,"No Headley,no buy of US weaponry"."BS" will then find its own level.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 30 Mar 2010 16:07

The US has to protect its rent-boy and so Gilani/Headley is denied to India.In such a situ,the GOI should simply say,"No Headley,no buy of US weaponry"."BS" will then find its own level.

A rare agreement with Philip

This Headley perfidy is really pissing people off

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Mar 2010 18:46

Uncle "O" is an intelligent man,as shown from his last two successes,the Health Bill and the US-Russia START agreement.REduction in N-weapons is a godsend for humanity.It also puts the pressure upon so-called rogue states to rein in their ambitions.He should take a holistic regional approach to matters on the Indian sub-continent instead of a myopic "Pak-is-family" State Dept./Pentagon view point.As JFK said of LBJ,he could rather have India either "inside the tent pissing out,or outside the tent pissing in".At the moment Indians are surely "pissed off" with Uncle "O" and his team of nitwits.

As for the C-17,it should be last on the list of priorities for all three services.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 31 Mar 2010 10:48

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/10061 ... -deal.html

The US would like to discuss with the French over their decision to sell a warship to the Russians. They would like to dictate to others what they can sell and to whom. Do you know why they just want to "discuss" the issue with France instead of plainly forbidding it, like they did to Spain when that country intended to sell gunboats and light tactical aircraft to Venezuela? Because the French Mistral warship is purposely built ITAR-free.

Had there been a single component of that ship that had a US origin, the US would have found an obscure clause of their laws that would have permitted them to forbid the French from pursuing the transaction.

Its up to India to decide if it wants to be a Nation with which the US wants to "discuss" issues, or one to which the US dictates......

Mr_Li · Post by **Mr_Li** » 31 Mar 2010 11:26

C17 should not be purchased from USA.

USA is not a reliable supplier (can and will cut off supplies / spares)
USA wants to profit from supplying both Ind / Pak
India's nuclear test possibilities will diminish to ZERO (as it is 0.00001 already)
USA will rig the machines with bugs
USA wants india / pak to be like Israel / Egypt
(it supplies to both sides, but prefers Israel)
USA is too close to Pak for comfort

(As long as USA supplies even a lollypop to Pak, India should not waste its hard earned software exported money on US hardware,

Recent Hillary introduction of Paki foreign minister at the State Dpt will open many eyes about how buddy buddy they are)
|
|
v
Hillary's BlaBla

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 06 Apr 2010 04:59

USAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III lifting-off aggressively enroute its STOL Demo, Yelahanka.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/1679489/L/

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Apr 2010 09:16

Vishal Jolapara wrote:USAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III lifting-off aggressively enroute its STOL Demo, Yelahanka.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/1679489/L/

C-17 in Aero India
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quOwa58NeHE

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 06 Apr 2010 09:24

Vishal Jolapara wrote:USAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III lifting-off aggressively enroute its STOL Demo, Yelahanka.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/1679489/L/

Did you read the comment below that picture?

To put things in perspective, this sharp ROC (Rate-of-Climb) is largely aided by the fact that the airplane is completely empty & has just enough fuel for the 15 min demo + reserve

The short take off and landings are aided by the same factor.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 06 Apr 2010 11:05

Mr_Li wrote: (As long as USA supplies even a lollypop to Pak, India should not waste its hard earned software exported money on US hardware,

With Indian generals thinking about fighting a two front war and the Chinese adding a dozen or so airfields in Tibet for the Chinese airforce, India HAS to buy the C17 if not something else to be able to even put up a decent struggle. The number of C17s in fact should be doubled considering the size of India's military and the number of airfields the Chinese has in Tibet. They should be converting ALG to airbases too but that is another topic all together.