India-US News and Discussion

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 31 Mar 2010 10:13

^^^^
Islamic Yahoos, as you term them, and the grip of neocon ideology has caused the US to burn through $1 trillion dollars in its post-2001 wars. They are not

as claimed.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 31 Mar 2010 11:24

This author argues that Islamic fundamentalism arises due to Western influence on Muslim societies, particularly that of Marxist thought. This would explain why US Ivy League institutions are populated with Islamist sympathisers and also how they are able to find allies in India. If this theory holds, adopting a rigid anti-American stance will protect Indian minorities from the Islamist influence. Also holds great significance for the Education Bill that wants to invite foreign universities into India.

How Marx turned Muslim

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Mar 2010 12:08

Training in the Raining
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-0kSdDZIgM

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14778313? ... ck_check=1
Feds: Christian militia needed to be 'taken down'

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 31 Mar 2010 13:33

Indian-American group asks US to declare Pak a terrorist state

WASHINGTON: Arguing that Islamabad is using terrorism as a tool for its foreign policy, especially against India, an Indian-American group on Wednesday asked secretary of state Hillary Clinton to declare Pakistan as a terrorist state and seize all its nuclear weapons.

"Instead of penalizing Pakistan for its support to the notorious terrorists and spreading global terrorism, US, unfortunately, is rewarding this country with the deadly weapons and billions of dollars of hard cash," Narayan Kataria, head of New York-based Indian American Intellectual Forum, said in a letter to Clinton.

Similar letters have also been written to several influential lawmakers.

"We should recognize in unambiguous terms that Pakistan is the root cause of terror and instability in that region. In order to win the war in Afghanistan it is essential that American war strategy should be focused on Pakistan. In the next 18 months, American troops will be leaving Af-Pak region," Kataria said.

The letter said, Indian American Intellectual Forum believe that it is inappropriate for the US to prop up Pakistan and balance its strategic partnership with India by selling deadly F-16 to Pakistan Air Force together with other advanced weapons and avionics for air-to-air combat that appear to us unnecessary for counter-insurgency operations in mountainous area against Taliban.

"This is being done in spite of the admission by General (Pervez) Musharraf that Pakistan is modifying the arms, which are meant to fight the terrorists, for use against India," the letter said.

"Intelligence inputs received by Indian officials indicate that Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba has acquired as many as 50 paragliding equipments from China for the potential use to launch suicide attacks in India. This, obviously, could not be accomplished without Pakistan's active connivance, complicity and tactical support," it said.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 31 Mar 2010 14:02

shiv wrote: Actually the West has no ideology. Ideologies are essentially ideals that tie you down. If you are looking for domination and "winner takes all" there must be no ideology. Ideology must be discarded when inconvenient and adhered to when convenient. All ideology bound groups are weak. Islamic ideology is weak, and any group that thinks Islamic ideology is a threat is weaker still. Islamic ideology binds and blinds Muslims in a way that the west uses. But we are blind to that because we are either holding on to some alternate ideals ourselves (which bind us to fear) or have not thought this thing through.

The US (and an earlier imperial Britain) had no such mental shackles.

There are two types of powers - legitimate ones that want to take care of their people, and illegitimate ones that want to subjugate and dominate other peoples.

If one takes the view that global domination by force is the objective, then there is some validity to what you say. But the problem is that nobody wants to sacrifice their lives so that somebody else may dominate the world. So an ideology is needed even by imperialists, to fool people into fighting and dying.

Amongst the various political ideologies, Jihadism is particularly good at motivating poor, illiterate or mentally stunted people to kill and be killed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Mar 2010 14:16

A_Gupta wrote:^^^^
Islamic Yahoos, as you term them, and the grip of neocon ideology has caused the US to burn through $1 trillion dollars in its post-2001 wars. They are not as claimed.

Its their money and they are welcome to any way they burn it as long as it does not get handed to an Islamic yahoo who hits India. 17 billion is 1.7% of 1 trillion. And Pakistan has received that. Possibly more. A huge percentage of 1 trillion has gone into controlling the yahoos of Iraq, so Pakistan has in effect received an even higher percentage. The number of Islamic servant allies the US has made is significant. And they are "thinking about" getting out of some wars.

It's the same game.

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 31 Mar 2010 15:34

Request Admins to move/delete if found irrelevant/unsuitable for this thread.

Pic 1

Capt. (Dr.) Tejdeep Singh Rattan proclaims "I am a Sikh warrior" to the delight of his classmates after exiting the gas chamber during nuclear, biological and chemical training at Camp Bullis, Texas, March 17.

Pic2

Capt. (Dr.) Tejdeep Singh Rattan (right) checks in a patient during the triage portion of an exercise during the Basic Officer Leadership Course at Camp Bullis, Texas. Rattan is the first Sikh allowed to keep his articles of faith while in uniform in 23 years. Rattan, a dentist, heads to Fort Drum in upstate New York after training.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 31 Mar 2010 18:08

India, US ties proposed against cyber terrorism

India has suggested close partnership with the US in cyber security, particularly against cyber terrorism, as the two countries take their economic and tech cooperation to the next level.

Indian Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology Sachin Pilot made the suggestion in talks with senior officials at the White House and in the US Department of Commerce during a week long visit, Indian officials said on Tuesday.

Highlighting the mutual advantages of establishing close India-US collaboration in the area of cyber security, in particular against cyber terrorism, he also emphasised the need for bilateral initiatives to be specific, result-oriented and time-bound.

Healthcare and skill formation were among other ideas that came up in talks on how to take the India-US economic and technological collaboration to the next level, including through fostering joint innovation with broad-based benefits.

Among the officials who called on him were the newly appointed Under Secretary for International Trade Administration Francisco Sanchez, Federal Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra, Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra and Senior Adviser for Innovation to the US Secretary of State Alec Ross.

In interactions with trade and industry bodies, pilot described the opportunities that India presented in the field of Communications and Information Technology, not only for services but also in manufacturing.

In exchanges with the members of the US India Business Council (USIBC), and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Tuesday, he spoke about the Indian government's commitment of the to use information technology as a platform for providing access to services to those who had not benefited so far.

Stressing the mutually beneficial nature of the bilateral economic relationship, Pilot pointed to the broadly balanced trade in services, the fast rate of growth of US exports to India and the rapid growth in Indian investments flowing into the United States.

He said that the two governments should work to provide an enabling environment in which goods, services and persons can move freely to utilize emerging opportunities from which both sides stand to gain.

Pilot who also visited New York and Philadelphia, met with senior executives from a number of US and Indian companies to discuss the potential for further collaboration between India and the US in the field of technology, particularly with regard to using Communications and Information Technology to promote inclusive growth.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Apr 2010 02:58

Sorry folks, but this churlish tirade needs to be responded.

Rudradev wrote:
shiv wrote: Saar the above paragraph occupies about 25% of your reportedly well argued post and is not an argument at all. It is merely verbose rhetoric adding no information of value. It could have been left out but its inclusion suggests that you needed to fluff up you post.

Well said. But if it makes you feel better, at least there are no "Is it your birthday Madam" type queries.
.
AmberG Madam, aapka to jawaab hi nahin.

You butt into a discussion with the sole purpose of picking a fight with me in shrill, jalebi-flavored tones.

But of course, if I were to respond in kind you would instantly start bawling: "Admins! What is this equal-equal! I demand an apology" etc. etc.

You might want to consider what this does for your credibility when you make sagacious pronouncements about "self goals" and so on. Have a good day.

First, let me correct your first lie. My purpose (sole or otherwise) was not to pick a fight with you. In fact I did not even mention you in that post. If you thought that “It is your birthday Madam?” was silly or idiotic statement, you need not have made it (or left it unedited)

Second, wrt to Jalebi flavored tones, I am not the one who calls Indian leaders prostitutes, or it wasn’t my post which was described by Shivji as “..

[post] and is not an argument at all. It is merely verbose rhetoric adding no information of value. It could have been left out but its inclusion suggests that you needed to fluff up you post..

I am not the one who is “bawling”, In a previous post, I accepted your apology, as I though you were civil, but if you want to continue your tirade, that’s not my problem.

Finally about my “reputation” and “credibility” in your group: What can I say? If it goes down in your g roup-think, I can live with that. I might add, my personal and professional life is not going to be affected much because of what a group from BRF (or deaf and dumb forum, for that matter) think. Besides, what reputation? ..Aaccording to this group, already, I come from a country whose leaders are prostitutes and sellouts, my gurus in nuclear physics sells vapor ware , my school is nothing but producer of bunch of traitors, and I live in this evil America… NO these are not straw man type arguments or exaggerations (I wish they were) these are the actual statements made my this group. Who needs madam Jalebi? (Even she is not that vitriolic when it came to my school or my country)

I must say that Sankuji made good on his threat of “You are going to get some, and more if you continue on that tone” (I did not doubt that)

********************************
Folks no one enjoys this, but I think it is relevant to this thread to discuss what many will describe as bullying and its effects with respect to topic of this thread. We discuss, among other things, media items and members diverse perspective so it is not to our advantage that diverse perspective is subject to bullying. To understand what I am saying, let me give one example. Prof Tim Hoyt (who used his real name), who has testified in Congress etc, some times also contributed in these threads. But virtually every one of his post will followed by a , UmraoJohn/Snow’s (under a burqa of pseudonym) post Of course this is/was not isolated. Once he had about 12+ inane posts about “Amber” and “Balls” (without a SINGLE post in reply( . Some times other members will join in while an admin will look away.
This does not encourage diverse viewpoints here.
I asked Ramana for some clarification. I have not got any PM. For comments and perspective, please hold on to your thoughts. Time permitting, I will start a thread in GD . thanks,

********************************
Let me be clear, what I meant about not scoring the “self goals” and not go for “equal equal”. I mean why get annoyed when some experts here go India,Pak equal equal when our own BRF enforce it very forcefully here.
They have e photo-chors and Jihnn thermodynamics, we have vapor ware sellers and man who walks on water. Their election, Camandu gets 400% votes from registered voters, our election and PM - same kind of fraud. (as some one put it 99.999999999% did not vote for him). Both countries leaders are prostitutes/sellouts and worse.. They think 26/11 was caused by RAW, this group has similar views (those who voted for Obama or such) … No I am not making this up. These are the indeed some of actual posts posted here. And worse, if any one challenged those views, at least some times things get nasty and uncivil. In that regard, I was asking people not to put silly = = here.

To be clear, NO one is asking or suggesting that all criticism is invalid, and no one is above to be held accountable. I am merely challenging the senseless name calling and silly attacks.

Sorry, this may seem harsh, but this is indeed the state of the matter. You don’t have to take my word for it, just check out the previous posts here.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 01 Apr 2010 03:24

One more in the New York Times continuing attention to India:
Suicides, Some for Separatist Cause, Jolt India

Suicide has become something of a phenomenon in India, especially in the south, which now has one of the highest suicide rates in the world — a fact that has both puzzled and alarmed public health experts.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Apr 2010 05:08

A_Gupta wrote:One more in the New York Times continuing attention to India:
Suicides, Some for Separatist Cause, Jolt India
Suicide has become something of a phenomenon in India, especially in the south, which now has one of the highest suicide rates in the world — a fact that has both puzzled and alarmed public health experts.

When they write South it is actually Kerala. 90% of the suicide happens in Kerala. Marxist and communist views may have contributed to wraped world view

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Apr 2010 05:33

NPR show "On Point" Please listen to podcast. Half way thru the US interlocutors bring in India TSP ==.

The Russian guy defends India.

On Point: Moscow DC treaty on nukes

Thanks CRS for the tipoff.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Apr 2010 06:17

X-post...

joshvajohn wrote:India a world mathematics power, says professor Raghunathan
http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/01/stories ... 251200.htm

Rumors is that Kiran Kedlaya is in for Fields Medal. (Guys you heard it here first!). He is under 40, and is an invited speaker. People may recall I had talked about him in our math thread. He has won many IMO medals ... for those who don't know him, he is at present a prof at MIT.
(Of course, It is a guarded secret, and no one is suppose to know till the announcement is made)

Other I think may be Ngo or may be Lurie or Manjul Bhargava.. Lets us wait and see.

X-post (In another news item)
There is one Indian Origin person running for US congress in from Ohio primary elections.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 01 Apr 2010 07:25

Amber G. wrote:
Other I think may be Manjul Bhargava.. Lets us wait and see.

I met this guy at Princeton univ. He is a good Hindustani classical musician too. Way to go!!!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 Apr 2010 07:51

US foreign policy: Waiting on a sun king

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/df53a396-3c2a ... abdc0.html

For better or for worse, Washington has grown used to the fact that Barack Obama runs the most centralised – or “White House-centric” – administration since Richard Nixon. When Nixon wanted foreign policy advice, everyone knew where he got it from: Henry Kissinger, variously his national security adviser and secretary of state.

In contrast, Mr Obama has no big foreign policy strategist. Even insiders give different answers when asked to whom he turns for advice on the big international questions. But almost all agree with the following observation. “The truth is that President Obama is his own Henry Kissinger – no one else plays that role,” says a senior official. “Every administration reflects the personality of the president. This president wants all the trains routed through the Oval Office.”

...

“On the positive side, we have a very conscientious president who takes advice widely,” says the official. “On the debit side, for all the president’s intelligence, Barack Obama came to office with very little experience. He just doesn’t have much depth on some issues.”

The core of Mr Obama’s foreign policy machinery is in the White House-based National Security Council, which advises the president and co-ordinates activities across an increasingly complex alphabet soup of Washington departments, military commands and intelligence agencies. The most widely questioned link in the chain is Jim Jones, whom, to many people’s surprise, Mr Obama brought in as his national security adviser.

Only briefly acquainted with Mr Obama beforehand, General Jones, a retired four-star marine corps general, shows little interest in running the “inter-agency” process – a key part of the job. Somewhat unconventionally, Gen Jones travels frequently and is thus often out of town. Unusually, it is Mr Obama himself who usually chairs the weekly National Security Council, known as the “principals meeting”, not Gen Jones.

Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, is also a key part of it. “If you were to ask me who the real national security adviser is, I would say there were three or four, of whom Rahm is one and of which Gen Jones is probably the least important,” says another official.

Anyone who has dealt with Gen Jones speaks highly of his matter-of-factness, his geniality and the respect many foreign governments have for him – Pakistan and Israel among them. But as he himself admitted rather disarmingly last year, he does not have a taste for bureaucracy. Speaking at the Atlantic Council, a think-tank where he previously worked, Gen Jones provoked laughter when he said: “I fondly remember [the Atlantic Council] as a place where people actually did what you asked them to do. In my new role I’m finding out that an order is a basis for negotiation.”

The lack of a strong national security adviser has created recurring difficulties. Perhaps the best example is the Arab-Israeli peace process, which Mr Obama launched on his second day in office when he appointed George Mitchell as his envoy. Three months later, Mr Obama insisted Benjamin Netanyahu freeze all settlements activity in order to boost Arab confidence in the talks.

In a heated showdown in the Oval Office last May, in which Mr Netanyahu refused to accede to Mr Obama’s demand, the only officials present were Mr Emanuel and David Axelrod, senior adviser to Mr Obama in office and during the campaign. Gen Jones was not there. The fallout put the talks in abeyance and damped high Arab hopes for Mr Obama.

“The question is, which bright spark advised the president to demand a settlements freeze without working out what the next step should be when Netanyahu inevitably said ‘No’?” says Leslie Gelb, an official in the Carter administration and former head of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Why wasn’t George Mitchell in the room? Where was Jones?”

...

“If you look for the 2002 or 2003 meeting where the decision to go to war in Iraq was taken, you cannot find it,” says the senior official. “By getting the process right, we are improving the quality of decisions.”

...

The widely expected departure of Gen Jones before the end of the year has also created rivalries within the engine room. Those who are thought to have ambitions to replace him include Mr Steinberg, Ms Rice, Mr Donilon and Denis McDonough, NSC chief of staff and the foreign policy official who is personally closest to Mr Obama. Although all are widely respected, none is considered a big strategic thinker in the Kissinger or Scowcroft mould.

Described by Mr Gelb as Mr Obama’s “Lord High Executioner”, Mr McDonough “has appended himself to the Chicago crowd”, says another official. Mr McDonough’s widely feared role highlights some of the contradictions of Mr Obama’s foreign policy apparatus.

...

“McDonough is the guy from the campaign and the one who plays basketball with the president – they’re very close,” says an official. “Instead of Jim Jones telling McDonough what the president thinks, it is the other way round.”

...

Mr Obama has built a machine in which all roads lead to and from him. On the minus side, that means a lot of lower-level meetings without decisions. It also means neglecting issues that cannot be squeezed into his diary, such as trade policy, which continues to drift; or relations with India, which are unnecessarily tense.

...

On the plus side, Mr Obama has a sharp learning curve, which means his administration continues to evolve. On the plus side also, if it has to be White House-centric, it is perhaps better with him as the Sun King than, say, Nixon or George W. Bush.

“At the end of each meeting, the president summarises what everyone has said and the arguments each has made with a real lawyer’s clarity,” says a participant to the NSC principals meeting, which includes Mr Gates and Mrs Clinton. “When the president finally makes a decision, it is with the full facts and usually shows a high calibre of judgment.”

When Mr Obama makes a decision, that is.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Apr 2010 07:54

CRamS wrote:
Amber G. wrote:
Other I think may be Manjul Bhargava.. Lets us wait and see.
I met this guy at Princeton univ. He is a good Hindustani classical musician too. Way to go!!!

Quite a few mathematicians are musicians too. Prog Gangolli at UWash is another.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 Apr 2010 13:15

India and U.S. likely to clash over nuclear liability bill

Speaking on background because of the sensitivities involved, an American nuclear industry source told The Hinduon Wednesday, “CSC Annex Article 3.3 says, ‘The liability of the operator for nuclear damage shall be absolute'… [But] the draft India bill has no provision making the operator absolutely liable, as required by the CSC.”

This objection assumes significance in the light of claims made by senior Indian officials in briefings to the media and political parties that the Rs. 500-crore cap applies only to “no-fault liability.” Nuclear operators and their suppliers would continue to be exposed to claims of tortious liability — liability for damages caused through some fault of theirs — by Indian victims in the event of an accident.

Indian officials on Wednesday cited Article 46 of the bill — which says the liability law will not take away from the provisions of the existing laws allowing action in the event of a nuclear accident — and reiterated the government's willingness to make the bill's provisions more explicit. They said the Article 35 exclusion of civil courts jurisdiction applied only to claims arising out of a ‘no-fault liability'. Civil courts would remain fully empowered to hear tort claims.

‘Right of recourse'

On his part, the American nuclear industry source also identified the ‘right of recourse' granted to nuclear operators by the Indian bill against suppliers as a major problem area. Article 17(b) of the bill — first highlighted in The Hindu— allows the operator to sue his supplier for recovery of any damages he is forced to pay if a nuclear accident results from “the wilful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee.”

“Like the lack of absolute or strict liability, 17(b) is inconsistent with the CSC, as well as the Paris and Vienna Conventions and the nuclear liability laws of every other country with a nuclear power programme,” the U.S. nuclear industry source said.

The American source also found fault with Article 46. “If this article means the operator would not be exempt from any other proceedings [other than criminal liability], that too would be inconsistent with the CSC requirement for exclusive operator liability. CSC Annex Article 3.9 provides, “The right to compensation for nuclear damage may be exercised only against the operator liable ... The draft bill has no such provision channelling liability exclusively to the operator.”

While the Obama administration has not said anything to India about these “problem” clauses, Indian officials say they are aware that the nuclear industry association in the U.S. is beginning its lobbying drive. “They have held a meeting and it is only a matter of time before Washington raises this with us,” an official said. “But they are also in a bind. After all, the Indian law is consistent with the CSC. But that doesn't mean we have to give up our rights under tort law and common law.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 Apr 2010 19:32

Why the US must not alienate India

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Apr 2010 19:47

CRamS wrote:
Amber G. wrote:
Other I think may be Manjul Bhargava.. Lets us wait and see.
I met this guy at Princeton univ. He is a good Hindustani classical musician too. Way to go!!!

IIRC he studied tabla under Zakir Hussain. He recently got Ramanujan Prize (for contribution to number theory).

added later: just checked google to confirm above:http://connect.in.com/manjul-bhargava/b ... 82251.html

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 01 Apr 2010 20:05

X-posting.
US policy limitations.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archiv ... in_the_co/

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Apr 2010 21:19

A_Gupta wrote:X-posting.
US policy limitations.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archiv ... in_the_co/

I recall stating earlier that China bandwagoned with the US and tolerated US bases close to its borders, and intense US criticism of the Chinese system in exchange for having its way in other areas.

A rough corroboration of that is here

the heart of U.S. Cold War strategy toward West Germany and Japan, the "markets-for-bases" swap. In return for giving up an independent foreign policy to their protector, the United States, the West Germans and Japanese would be granted access to American markets (and, in the case of the Germans, access to Western European markets).
<snip>
China, like West Germany (now Germany) and Japan before it, took the U.S. up on the offer. In seeking to persuade multinationals to close down production in the U.S. and make things in China, the Chinese government cheated in various ways, confident perhaps that the U.S. foreign policy establishment, invoking diplomatic and national-security considerations, would intervene on its behalf against American manufacturers and workers. Like postwar Japan and Germany, China has accepted the terms of the bargain America's elites offered, focusing on economic growth while the U.S. wasted blood and treasure on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 01 Apr 2010 22:08

While this has nothing to do with India, I think this thread is also meant to help understand the US better. In that spirit, I link to the following, which is relevant for Pentagon/DoD PR policy.
Admiral Mullen and David Ignatius

IMO - we spend a lot of effort to understand Pakistan and make that understanding explicit. I think BRF should spend at least an equal effort on the US. I think of greatest interest for this thread would be how foreign and defence policies are made and implemented; and how the foreign policy and defence establishment runs. Presumably economic and trade policy may belong in the Technology and Economic forum.

PS: a good understanding of the US may exist, but it is mostly in some BRFers' minds, there is not the accumulation of information and models that e.g, we see in the T.S.P. thread.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Apr 2010 22:17

A_Gupta wrote:While this has nothing to do with India, I think this thread is also meant to help understand the US better. In that spirit, I link to the following, which is relevant for Pentagon/DoD PR policy.
Admiral Mullen and David Ignatius

IMO - we spend a lot of effort to understand Pakistan and make that understanding explicit. I think BRF should spend at least an equal effort on the US. I think of greatest interest for this thread would be how foreign and defence policies are made and implemented; and how the foreign policy and defence establishment runs. Presumably economic and trade policy may belong in the Technology and Economic forum.

PS: a good understanding of the US may exist, but it is mostly in some BRFers' minds, there is not the accumulation of information and models that e.g, we see in the T.S.P. thread.

A-Gupta We used to have a thread called "US and the worold" for the very purpose. It got deleted in a fit of remorse after the Forum being tagged. Some of the stalwarts used to post in it questioning its purpose.

Leonard · Post by **Leonard** » 01 Apr 2010 22:59

We have a new Republican Star on the Horizon aka Sen Dana Rohrabacker ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_%22Bob%22_J._Giuda

This guy, believes his life mission is to "deliver Cashmere" to the Pakjabis ..

His mission statements ...

http://www.bobgiuda.com/human-rights

>>

As your Congressman, I will:

...
* Work to develop sensible and just international solutions to ongoing conflicts such as those in Kashmir, Palestine and Darfur that have fostered repression, terrorism, and the murder of millions of innocents.
* Consider multilateral military intervention, with regional support, to establish “safe zones” in war torn areas such as Darfur, Kashmir, and Palestine as a means to preventing atrocities and genocide. While we are not the world’s policeman, we can join with other countries to take measures to provide protection and relief for refugees.
* Support legislation to de-centralize the United Nations and establish regional U.N. centers on each continent, supported financially and with troops by the nations in those regions, to deal with the issues related to those regions. U.S. financial support will be dependent on the demonstrated level of commitment by the regional nations and the absence of corruption in financial affairs.
* Support sanctions against regimes that engage in repression of human rights.

<<

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 01 Apr 2010 23:00

CRamS wrote:
So as an NRI myself, its impossible and even immoral (without feeling the guilt of a Namakharam) to "hate" US for its deliberate policy of hurting and keeping India down by propping up that terrorist abomination called TSP. I am torn between the love hate sentments with US in every breath that I take. I wish I could align US and India, but its simply impossible.

There is a punjabi song that comes to my mind about this issue., written and sung by Gurdas Maan.

"Lakh Pardesi Hoyiya apna mulk nahi bhandida"

Never betray or say bad things or become enemy of your birth country.

"Jehda Mulk da Khaieyae usda bura nahi mannida"

Never do/agree/say any bad things about the country that provides you with food

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Apr 2010 23:36

Victims of Hakim Shiv's piskoligical experiment .

USA is not government but the people and so is India .We can stress upon and promote the goodness of both and then IMHO there are onlee 2 real condemnable acts in this world: Mamma Britaniat and Child Pakistaniat.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Apr 2010 00:50

^^^Lenord, Dana Rohrabacker , and his buddy Bob Giuda (who you are linking) from NH along with his part-time paki friend Saggy Tahir came under radar and became quite famous in BRF after their 2002 (?) fact finding trip to yellow see and making NH a laughing stock of the world by passing some some resolution in NH state legislation. (Even local NH papers laughed at them)

Think Giuda did win in 2004, but either did not run or lost in 2006 (Many Indians took upon themselves to educate the locals about their terrorists connections). I just checked, he is running for US congress, but I don't think (at least hope) that he has any chance.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Apr 2010 01:08

He is also closet buddy buddy with Indian EJ clowns. When Vajpayee visited White House, He was the one on kisisng spree with Desi EJs, Indian Islamists ( of Singh foundation / Taxi Union and John Dyal of Indian Church union fame . few of them now on current GOI's national minority /secular Commission payroll ) yahoos protesting against the Indian PM outside the White House with overtly displaying religious bias in effort to weaken "Hindu" PM . Actually it was the day i realize these "seculars" will sell Mother India for penny to promote their religious doctrines HQed in Middel East.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Apr 2010 02:45

On a lighter side, for today:
X-post:
For any one in the neighborhood, check this out..
SPEND A WEEKEND AT CAMP DAVID

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Apr 2010 08:45

A_Gupta wrote:http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archiv ... in_the_co/

By sheer coincidence I read this article in conjunction with another one sent to me on email.

China: Crunch Time

I am no economist but I have some observations

Both articles speak of how the "Bretton Woods" system was applied by the US, initially to Germany and Japan and later China in a modified way.

The US opened its vast markets for imports - an attractive proposition for exporting countries to build up huge dollar reserves. In a world where the value of currency was pegged to the dollar, this helped exporting nations become really wealthy. But the US retained military power over all these countries. The countries that actually benefited from the system were Japan, Germany, Korea, Singapore and China (perhaps Taiwan - but I don't see the name anywhere).

In all cases the US retained the military power to prevent adventurism by these countries - some of whom had proved to be most troublesome in the 20th century. The US was the only country that was able to afford to maintain such large foreign deployments. One of the article linked above quotes Bush as saying "We make the wars, you make the cars". This gels in perfectly well with Friedman's observation that "Behind every MacDonald's lies a McDonnell-Douglas"

Clearly the Bretton Woods system allowed for a peaceful-non military control of a large number of industrial powers by engulfing them in an attractive economic system. Yet the US retained its military independence and clout.

But what of nations who were unable to join the Bretton Woods system the way Japan and Germany entered it? It appears that the IMF - set up along with the Bretton Woods system served the role of exerting economic control. Pakistan is a key nation that is controlled using the IMF - essentially to bribe the leadership.

What about countries who fall outside the control regimes of Bretton Woods and the IMF? I suspect only military force can hold them in check, and the single country with the required military force anywhere in the world is the same country that controlled the IMF and kept military bases all over the world - the USA.

Can India benefit from an "open unprotected" US market like Japan, Germany and China to develop a huge positive balance of trade with the US? My guess is probably not. What has India got to export? Perhaps trained manpower is India's single most valuable export to the US. But having a positive balance of trade versus the US is a double edged sword. if the US chooses to put restrictions on imports - then the exporting nations with a positive balance of trade are hit the hardest - just as India gets hit every time a US president mentions H1b and India in the same breath.

Having a negative balance of trade with the US - where you import a lot from the US and export less can theoretically give a different sort of leverage on the US. If the US depends on you for a significant percentage of its trade earnings in a particular sector - you can possibly have a handle on US behavior. Just a thought..

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 02 Apr 2010 10:40

Having a negative balance of trade with the US - where you import a lot from the US and export less can theoretically give a different sort of leverage on the US

If you run a negative balance of trade with the US, how do you pay for your imports from the US? They will want USD for that.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 02 Apr 2010 11:17

While the economists who designed Bretton Woods were trying to secure the interests of their respective countries, they were also internationalists who deeply believed that the best way to avoid yet another world war was to maximise opportunities for all powers to grow. They tended to believe that the world wars were caused by national rivalries distorting and capturing market economic processes. International structures and agreements were needed to keep national rivalries in check.

When the cold war broke out (itself a disappointment to many of these internationalists) the focus of the system shifted to keeping all the members of the alliance happy.

With the end of the Cold War, its back to the old dreams of reducing conflict through global governance, while countries and blocs simultaneously jockey to protect their interests as far as possible.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Apr 2010 11:58

ldev wrote: If you run a negative balance of trade with the US, how do you pay for your imports from the US? They will want USD for that.

How is India placed with regard to balance of trade and US dollar reserves?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 02 Apr 2010 12:11

shiv wrote:
ldev wrote: If you run a negative balance of trade with the US, how do you pay for your imports from the US? They will want USD for that.
How is India placed with regard to balance of trade and US dollar reserves?

This gives an idea of total US merchandise exports at about USD 1 Trillion in 2009, largest importer from the US was Canada at just over USD 200 billion. India is at USD 16 billion. If you want to run a negative trade balance with the US, it has to meaningful in terms of total US exports i.e. India has to import somewhere between 10% and 20% of total US exports. As against that India has foreign exchange reserves of about USD 250 billion. Therefore the question is, how sustainable is such a policy specifically vis a vis the US?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Apr 2010 21:15

ldev wrote:
This gives an idea of total US merchandise exports at about USD 1 Trillion in 2009, largest importer from the US was Canada at just over USD 200 billion. India is at USD 16 billion. If you want to run a negative trade balance with the US, it has to meaningful in terms of total US exports i.e. India has to import somewhere between 10% and 20% of total US exports. As against that India has foreign exchange reserves of about USD 250 billion. Therefore the question is, how sustainable is such a policy specifically vis a vis the US?

The way I understand the Bretton Woods system is that the US allowed some nations (Germany, Japan, later China) to have a huge trade surplus vis a vis the US that would prevent them from wanting to kill their goose that laid the golden eggs. That was a price the US was willing to pay to keep its military superiority and bases around every region of concern.

It is easy to say now that BRIC are a rising power group. The BRIC are Johnny-come-latelys. The US has seen powers far greater than B and I of BRIC - in the form of Japan and Germany and has defeated them and kept them in check, using Bretton Woods as incentive. Germany ad Japan have had no incentive to develop as world powers with military capability. The only other powers to challenge the US are now BRIC. Of these Russia, China and India are the three powers who have developed military capability without dependence on the US.

Among Russia, China and India, The US has enmeshed China in a Bretton Woods like scheme to reduce China's incentive to challenge the US. That leaves Russia and India and a few smaller players including Iran. Each one of these countries has some unique factors. None of them is enmeshed in a Bretton Woods type scheme. None of them is dependent on the US for arms.

On the face of this India appears to be a unique - one off case. I was surprised to learn that India actually has a positive trade balance with the US. That means we lose more if the US imposes import restrictions - but the amount is small. At the same time the US hardly imports anything from India (as you point out) so India's "power" if any is in not being involved with the US at all.

The post WW2 system of avoiding wars (as Johann said) was to enmesh nations in an economic tangle that benefited everyone. That was applied to all who went towards the US in the cold war. The nations that were seen as Soviet allies were essentially kept out. Apart from Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and India merited this treatment. Aside from Russia, India is the only country that is actually making some sort of impact. And while India has not much influence with the US, the US too cannot influence India and has so far only been able to see India via its cold war lens of "balancing India" with Pakhanastan.

Clearly any sensible Indian would understand that war with the US is not a good idea. The US too understands that war with India again is not a good idea. And while mutual suspicions remain, the only way forward can be mutual engagement economically, while each country protects its interests. India has the dollars to engage the US, and the US has the technology to engage India. If India's trade with the US is 1% of its total trade, forget 10% - we need to take that to 2% first before we can reassess attitudes towards each other and see if trust can be built up to take it to 3%. The US clearly desires a better handle on India and India desires the same with the US. This is not going to happen overnight, but it is going to happen. Even the BJP is heading that way. Not just Kaangress. Only CPI opposes it.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Apr 2010 22:27

FACTBOX-Key political risks to watch in India

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Apr 2010 22:30

Luce addresses power, future of India

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 03 Apr 2010 01:36

Gerard wrote:Luce addresses power, future of India

Sweet music. But I believe Indian democracy works in part **because** of the "caste system" rather than in spite of it. {It serves as a organizing principle in the absence of others.}

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Apr 2010 02:42

Gerard wrote:Luce addresses power, future of India

Pretty much same as already known to majority BRFites. But the greatest impact will be in the realm of "Ideas": the ever arguing Indians with Epic size imagination will drive the thinking world bonker and make them question many material, spiritual, philosophical assumptions. Hope we still be here to enjoy the advent of Super Desi " Maal" on world stage.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 03 Apr 2010 03:10

shiv wrote:The US clearly desires a better handle on India and India desires the same with the US. This is not going to happen overnight, but it is going to happen. Even the BJP is heading that way. Not just Kaangress.

Eh? Isn't the revelation that Kaangress is headed that way? It is unnatural for Kaangress to favour the US because it risks offending its Muslim votebank. After all no one has f**** more Muslims than the US.