Bharat Rakshak

Considering that Senator John Kerry has now been nominated US. Secretary of State by U.S. President Barack H. Obama, we will see US become a lot more focused on propping up Pakistan and renewing military, economic and diplomatic aid to it with a lot more vigor.

Since Sen. John Kerry is going to spearhead this effort and going by his previous history of lifting Paki testicles and massaging Paki Military's ego, it is appropriate that the the thread be called so.

The military aid that is provided to Pakistan would ultimately contribute to the woes and deaths of Indian lives, those of our jawans and our civilians.

I would urge all BRFites to use this thread as a monitor of John Kerrorist's activities in favor of Pakistan, as well as to collate history of all American aid to Pakistan. Any reports about how Pakistan has paid back all that American generosity would also be welcome in this thread.

If one were to search BRF for keywords like "Kerry" and "Pakistan", many previous posts would come up. I would try to re-post those posts here and to link them with the originals. Others are more than welcome to do the same as well, as well as to use the thread as a monitor for the future.

Thank you!

saip

saip wrote:I wonder how many of my tax dollars will go to Pakis as jijya?

Obama Nominates Mr Ketchup as Secretary of State

venug

venug wrote:why should it matter now? TSP will get money with Kerry or without Kerry, what is new? Clinton signed TSP's cheques and signed on the dotted line that TSP is not a fomentor of terrorism. They are blind as bats anyways willing or otherwise. When American courts announced that TSP's ISI is absolved of any wrong doing and is given clean chit, this is nothing. It is US that is the fomentor of terrorism. Global War Against Terrosim, what a joke! the machinery which is waging a war against terrorism itself has a bunch of terrorist supporters and financiers and the leader of the pack is leading a war on terrorism. I love USA.

saip

saip wrote:In all a bad choice not only for Indian region but even for Dems.. It will only embolden the Pakis to try more of 11/26s. Republicans must be very happy as they are going to win back his Senate seat.

X-Posting from "Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Oct 4 2012" by SSridhar

Pakistan welcomes Kerry

Pakistan has welcomed the nomination of Senator John Kerry as the next US secretary of state, with its top diplomat in Washington calling the seasoned lawmaker a “steadfast” friend of the country.

“We welcome news of the nomination of Senator John F. Kerry as the next US Secretary of State. Senator Kerry is a man of towering stature and accomplishments, having served the United States with great vigor and distinction,” Islamabad’s ambassador to the United States Sherry Rehman said.

Ambassador Rehman, who has been engaged in an extensive diplomatic outreach on the Capitol Hill towards improvement of Pakistan-US ties, said Senator Kerry has demonstrated through the years an extraordinary understanding of the complexities of South and Central Asia.

“He has been a steadfast friend of Pakistan and is keenly aware of the strategic importance of a democratic, economically viable and stable Pakistan,” the ambassador noted.

“We look forward to his confirmation and to working with a statesman of his high moral standing and outstanding diplomatic caliber, to strengthen Pakistan-US relations, and to build peace and stability in South Asia,” she said in a statement released by the Pakistani embassy.

John Kerry : Terrorism Supporter and Financier - A sketch

While serving in the Senate, Kerry has earned a reputation as a left-of-center legislator.

He supports free trade, expansive U.S. foreign and military policy, investment in education, environmental protection and growth of the high tech New Economy.

In 2004, Kerry won the Democratic nomination for president, with much of his campaign platform criticizing the Bush administration's foreign policy, particularly in its handling of the Iraq war. Though Kerry voted to give the president authority to wage war in Iraq, he subsequently voted against an $87 billion aid package for the country.

In 2003, Kerry was diagnosed with and successfully treated for prostate cancer.

His Involvement with BCCI investigation:

During their investigation of Noriega, Kerry's staff found reason to believe that the Pakistan-based Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) had facilitated Noriega's drug trafficking and money laundering. This led to a separate inquiry into BCCI, and as a result, banking regulators shut down BCCI in 1991. In December 1992, Kerry and Senator Hank Brown, a Republican from Colorado, released The BCCI Affair, a report on the BCCI scandal. The report showed that the bank was crooked and was working with terrorists, including Abu Nidal. It blasted the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, the Customs Service, the Federal Reserve Bank, as well as influential lobbyists and the CIA.[72]

Kerry-lugar Bill:

The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 s.1707(also known as the Kerry-Lugar-Bergman Act) was an Act of Congress passed into law on October 15, 2010. It authorizes the release of 1.5 billion USD per year to the Government of Pakistan as non-military aid from the period of 2010 to 2014. It was proposed by Senators John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and Richard Lugar (R-Indiana). It is considered a major shift in foreign aid to Pakistan, as it significantly increases the civil aid given to the country as compared to previous aid given.

John Kerry has been particularly vocal about his support for the bill, including postings on his website and an article written with the Council on Foreign Relations defending the Act.[3][4] Pakistani President Asif Zardari and The Pakistani People's Party endorsed the legislation, as the Pakistani government seriously needed aid.

Academic Ishtiaq Ahmad also noted that the Act was meant as a gesture of support to the people of Pakistan, as well as combat terrorism. He stated there was a "trust deficit"[5] between the United States and Pakistan, which the Act demonstrates solidarity with the Pakistani people by improving institutions they interact with everyday. Furthermore, by improving the social and economic security of Pakistan, less people would be inclined to militarism.

Sigh, John Kerry, Dec 21, 2012

Kerry was wrong on the surge in Iraq, embarrassingly wrong in his faith in the reforming credentials of Bashar al Assad, wrong in his bizarre support for managed aid to Pakistan (for which we should also blame outgoing Senator Dick Lugar and Rep. Howard Berman), and too often just… wrong. His chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been an exercise in futility. But… he is not a loon. He is not a fool. That, apparently, is now the bar that must be leapt over for the Obama cabinet.

The Role Of U.S. Aid In Pakistan, Jun 2012 interview with NPR

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:

Senator John Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And he is a key U.S. liaison to Pakistan. We asked him how relations stand between the two countries.

SENATOR JOHN KERRY: Right now, things are troubled. It's in a very difficult place for a number of different reasons. And the Pakistanis have tended to play a fairly anti-American card whenever it serves their internal, domestic political interests, which has been frequently in the last couple of years. So these are the issues: point, counterpoint, back and forth, tit for tat, which are really undermining what ought to be a much more cooperative relationship; a relationship that has enormous interests in being more cooperative.

MARTIN: The U.S. is funneling a whole lot of aid to Pakistan. I mean, you are one of the architects of the major aid package, the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill, allotting $7.5 billion to Pakistan for five years. How much of that money has been allocated at this point and what can you show for it? What can you point to and say to the American taxpayer, believe me it's worth it that we keep giving money...

KERRY: Well, let me give you the upside of the things that we've been able to do. The fact is that we would not have been able to go after or find Osama bin Laden if we did not have access to the country and an intelligence capacity that was able to build the evidence for that raid. And, of course, Pakistan has a major nuclear program and nuclear weapons presence.

And it's critical for us to maintain a relationship with them. And we have a huge stake in those weapons not falling into the wrong hands, or in Pakistan not imploding. And I think personally it would be an enormous mistake just up and say, we're going to, you know, cut off everything and terminate it. It's a very complicated, difficult relationship.

MARTIN: Last question, Senator Kerry. A lot of this aid was designed to improve relations between regular Pakistanis and the United States. But there have been, even just as recently as the last week, allegations of fraud connected to some U.S. aid money. How do you respond to that when we're supposed to be winning hearts and minds?

KERRY: Well, you can't tolerate corruption anywhere in any of our aid programs. Period. I mean, that's just not acceptable. But it doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. And...

MARTIN: But is there a problem in the Pakistanis - while they want to accept the aid, resent American influence?

KERRY: Well, you know, people are just going to have to figure that one out and get over it. I can't think of a country that has acted in better faith. I think America has been extraordinary patient. I hope the Pakistanis will make some very fundamental decisions about what is really in their best interest. 'Cause if they continue to play a hedge strategy as they have, I think they're riding the back of the tiger. And as you know, the old saying: If you ride the back of the tiger you can wind up inside.

Kerry takes Senator Rand Paul to task over Pakistan aid cut talk

Senator Rand Paul on Thursday asked the US Senate to pass his amendment asking for all assistance to be cut off to Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. In his remarks while debating the Veterans Jobs Corps bill, Senator Paul said that while some in Pakistan had been supportive, “many in Pakistan with a wink and a nod take our money” and laugh at the US, referring to an alleged interview between CIA facilitator Dr Shakil Afridi and Fox News. Afridi in the interview, which he later denied giving, alleged that Pakistan is trying to get as much aid from the US as it can, all the while considering it the “worst enemy”.

Paul said that the US should stop all assistance to Pakistan and return the money to the US Treasury. He added that while the US should continue to engage with Pakistan, the US did not need to bribe Pakistan. Senator Paul added that the US should also stop assistance to Egypt and Libya following the attacks on US embassies in both countries.’

In response, Senator John Kerry, who is also the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, asked Senator Paul if he had ever been to either Egypt or Pakistan.In his remarks on the floor, Senator Kerry said that he found it “stunning” when there are remarks made about those specific countries not being friendly.

Recounting that troops in the northwestern part of Pakistan were losing their lives to militants, “and you want to cut off aid?” asked Senator Kerry.

The committee chairman reminded that US troops in Afghanistan get some supplies through the supply routes in Pakistan. Senator Kerry added the US has been able to decimate the al Qaeda with Pakistan’s help.

“Civilians are being killed in Pakistan,” he said.

Kerry added that Pakistan’s political system and population were enduring the war, and questioned Senator Paul’s statement on cutting off assistance. He reminded the senator that less than one per cent of the US budget goes to assistance abroad.

US, Pakistan: We'll Work Together to Uproot Terrorists - 2011 article

Kerry is in Pakistan to lay out the new stakes following bin Laden's death, and question officials about how bin Laden was able to hide in Pakistan for years. In Kabul, Kerry said there is "some evidence" that the Pakistan government has knowledge of insurgent activities, calling it "very disturbing."

Kerry Seeks 'Reset' on U.S.-Pakistan Ties - 2011 article

U.S. Sen. John Kerry told Pakistan's civilian and military leaders that Washington wanted to hit the "reset button" on deteriorating relations, amid mounting Pakistani anger over the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Sen. Kerry, who has become a trouble-shooter for the Obama administration in Pakistan, met with senior civilian and military leaders during a 24-hour visit meant to soothe Pakistani anger at not being informed about the raid, while also keeping up pressure on Islamabad to do more in its fight against militancy.

Sen. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he told Pakistani leaders about concerns voiced by members of the U.S. Congress about the presence of bin Laden in Abbottabad, a garrison town 40 miles (65 kilometers) from the capital, and the continued inability of Pakistan's military to shut down Afghan Taliban "sanctuaries" on its territory.

Closing the thread. Its in bad taste.

ramana

Changed the title and re-opened the thread...

Dear ramana garu,

I just felt, I should give some explanation for starting the "John Kerrorist - A Known Terrorist Financier, US Aid to Pak" Thread.

The idea is a bit more than simply mock an important personality for the cheap pleasure of being able to do so "anonymously" on the Internet by calling names for the kick of it. I don't know whether I would indulge in this or not, since I haven't done so previously, and the future one cannot foretell. But at least in this case, this was not the motivation.

One issue is that everybody in USA has been giving aid to Pakis, so why pick on Senator John Kerry? I think one reason, we perhaps do not make much of a headway in getting our message across is that when we accuse the whole of USA for this dirty financing of Paki military, all it says to them is that there are united in this policy, and only the Indians have a problem with that, which does not really register with the Americans as a cause for concern. Such a protest is not going to work.

I think in order to do better propaganda on our part we need to put some faces on abstractions, then the abstract becomes a lot more tangible. We use the same principle w.r.t. to murtis, though in a different way. What we need is some way of encapsuling this phenomena of US aid to Pakistan, making it a prominent issue for the Americans, and to make it a detestable policy. The only way we can do this is if some section of Americans pick this up and run with it. A general protest for this policy against America by us would not interest any such section. So we have to make it personal. We need to divide the Americans on this. A division is much easier when it is not a split through the middle (for that one needs some big issues) but when we can demonize a single individual, when we can make a single individual the face of this grotesque policy.

Senator John Kerry has always had many detractors in US politics who accuse him of being too liberal. So there is a willing market in USA for catch phrases which would mock him. Right wingers would have a ready-made stick to beat up liberal Democrats, and so too would the anti-establishment people also have one, since John Kerry is going to become even more prominent as he assumes his duties as US Secretary of State.

Just as in West, Reaganism, Thatcherism or even McCarthyism mean something, so too should Kerrorism mean something - it should stand for a policy of US politicians taking tax-payer dollars and paying off those who support terrorism and Jihad against USA. Kerrorism should stand for "Dumb West doing Terrorist Financing"!

I would wish that "John Kerrorist" becomes viral through USA.

So how does that help India? Well every time Dept. of State in USA decides to give money to Pakistan, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry has to hear a wave of "John Kerrorist" mockings through the Internet and perhaps Streets. That can ruin a US politician. And once "Kerrorism" itself gets established as a word, every politician would try not to get tainted with that accusation. In US Congress, the politicians too try to go at a distance from this policy which can give them the blot "Kerrorist" and so would desist from sanctioning more money to Pakistan.

So I agree that calling John Kerry as "John Kerrorist" is bad taste, but it also has a specific agenda. In fact, if the Americans believe that the term was coined due to frustration by Indians, it doesn't matter really. Better to be accused of "emotion" than of "having an agenda"!

It was Qaed-e-Azam who gave the first BJ to Sam.

Back in August 1947, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, foreseeing the finan­cial and military difficulties ahead, asked for US economic and military aid. Incidentally, the same request had also been submitted by New Delhi and Kabul. After an evaluation of Pakistan's strategic location at the crossroads of South-, Central-and West Asia in proximity to both China and the Soviet Union, the USA acceded to Pakistan's request under the American Mutual Security Legislation. In early 1954, Pakistan and the USA signed a Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement. Between 1954 -1965, Pakistan received US$650 million in military grants, US$619 mil­lion in defence support assistance, and US$ 55 million in cash or commercial purchases. This aid enhanced Pakistani defence capabil­ity by increasing the firepower and mobility, and improving C31 facilities of five and a half divisions

http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/AWPRevie ... 18&rnd=157

No need to focus excessively on Kerry or even Obama for that matter. Decisions like the creation of Pakistan, sustenance to be given etc are taken at a higher level. Yes, folks like Kerry may participate in deliberations and implement the agenda of elites.

AbhiJ wrote:It was Qaed-e-Azam who gave the first BJ to Sam.

Back in August 1947, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, foreseeing the finan­cial and military difficulties ahead, asked for US economic and military aid. Incidentally, the same request had also been submitted by New Delhi and Kabul. After an evaluation of Pakistan's strategic location at the crossroads of South-, Central-and West Asia in proximity to both China and the Soviet Union, the USA acceded to Pakistan's request under the American Mutual Security Legislation. In early 1954, Pakistan and the USA signed a Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement. Between 1954 -1965, Pakistan received US$650 million in military grants, US$619 mil­lion in defence support assistance, and US$ 55 million in cash or commercial purchases. This aid enhanced Pakistani defence capabil­ity by increasing the firepower and mobility, and improving C31 facilities of five and a half divisions

http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/AWPRevie ... 18&rnd=157

Actually, this statement does not reveal the name of the true benefactor of Bakistan - britain. It was british officials who convinced/mind-f*cked American officials into supporting bakistan.

Pranav wrote:No need to focus excessively on Kerry or even Obama for that matter. Decisions like the creation of Pakistan, sustenance to be given etc are taken at a higher level. Yes, folks like Kerry may participate in deliberations and implement the agenda of elites.

Yes, but Kerry Bahadur, like late Holbrooke Bahdur are key decision makers and part of the policy-making elite. A black guy like Obama even if he is president will have to pay obeisance to what someone like white bahadur Kerry says. Thats the way the US system works. Thats why this appointment is greeted with glee in TSP, and India ought to be worried. I expect Kerry to push the dormant Kashmir angle again. TSP is going to demand this be on the table. They got their 26/11 demand met with US letting Paasha off the hook.

I liked the name "John Kerrorist", but Americans on this forum will be watched for what they post on this thread and the FBI may come looking for them. So out of sensitivity let me just say that Manmohan Singh is a cowardly traitor but John Kerry is a good man at heart whose magnanimity comes out of immense strength and the control the US exerts on Pakistan.

It is so hilarious that Americans have to be careful about what they say - they will get screwed while the US itself can't handle Pakistan and can only pay bribes and give immunity to murderers. Just like Islam, where you had better show your allegiance properly - or you get cuttled. The US and Pakistan are made for each other, May they never break up.

CRamS wrote:

Pranav wrote:No need to focus excessively on Kerry or even Obama for that matter. Decisions like the creation of Pakistan, sustenance to be given etc are taken at a higher level. Yes, folks like Kerry may participate in deliberations and implement the agenda of elites.

Yes, but Kerry Bahadur, like late Holbrooke Bahdur are key decision makers and part of the policy-making elite. A black guy like Obama even if he is president will have to pay obeisance to what someone like white bahadur Kerry says. Thats the way the US system works. Thats why this appointment is greeted with glee in TSP, and India ought to be worried. I expect Kerry to push the dormant Kashmir angle again. TSP is going to demand this be on the table. They got their 26/11 demand met with US letting Paasha off the hook.

small question saar! isn't Kerry the "liberal" Democrat? isn't he supposed to be beyond the white/black narrative?

when analyzing American actions wrt India, there is no point talking about white/black. the US decided a generation ago that its color-based racism has become a hindrance to its future great power ambitions. they decided to drop that facet and now, even if there is a lot of cosmetics, there simply is no valid angle for us to attack them on that aspect. that era is gone. if we insist on holding to it, we'll come off as a bunch of obscurantist morons with a "chip on our shoulder". we need to find more innovative ways of pinpointing US indulgence of Pakis.

religion is a much better angle now. perhaps the US elite feel a kinship for the Islamics as opposed to the Hindoos?

I'm sure you understand what I'm hinting at!

I really don't see what's the big deal about the American secy of state possibly being pro-paki.

As we all know, being pro-paki isn't the same thing as being anti-India because when America gives the pakis life support, it's only putting its money where India's mouth is and ensuring a stable and prosperous pakistan. Besides, while India invites pakis over to play cricket, America kills some daily. The real point is: if an American secy of state turns out to be anti-India (instead of just pro-paki), what can or should India do about it?

All that can happen is more obstacles for India.
This guy along with ombaba added lot of clauses to nuke treaty

It was such a dreaded feeling to see John Kerry, Joe Biden in the same team. We just need Madeline Albright and Robin Raffel to complete the circle. The worst hypocrites and intellectually dishonest team that we can find.

IANS has a laudatory account of the Kerry appointment calling him "Friend of India!"

GP rubbished it in yahoo groups.

Victor wrote:America kills some daily.

Not the ones who matter. Just some villagers and goats. These piddly acts mean nothing but are mentioned as if they are some great victory for Rah Rah sooperpower America of F-22, F-35, B-2, B-52 fame with 14 aircraft carriers each carrying one PAF worth of aircraft.

the real problem with the Kerry types is that they have consistently shown nothing but the most hard-nosed contempt for Indian Nationalism, or any expression of it.

with the Republicans, they themselves are "nationalists", so there is space for India to express its own nationalism without getting beaten up over it.

with Dems, they pretend the oh-so-liberal, and display the same marxist/pseudo-Islamic "anti-nationalism", even though their core interest, like Republicans, is their own country's interest.

this has historically been a huge problem for India. the Dem pretension of pseudo-Islamic aversion to "nationalism" has been the beating stick which has been used to "show anger" at any expression of Indian Nationalism by the reigning political formulation in India.

and the next time elections roll around, we'll still have forumers talking about "cerebral Dems" vs. "redneck Reps".

let us understand where the American "Liberal" hatred for Indian nationalism comes from, and then we'll see that having the Reps in power opens up a space for India to express its interests much more freely.

even if the Reps are internally as virulent against India, propagating and openly advocating for our interests is an important step. it is the first step in acclimating the world to our interests...

There should be no doubts in mind for national interests anywhere and in any situation. If John the terrorist financier creates problems for India or even one individual Indian directly or indirectly then it should be notified. If he is financing terrorism in Pakistan then that should not affect India or Indians at all. That should be the bottomline. Plus some facts coming out from time to time about how John the terrorist financier's financing terrorism created troubles all around.

devesh wrote:..let us understand where the American "Liberal" hatred for Indian nationalism comes from....

..propagating and openly advocating for our interests..is the first step in acclimating the world to our interests..

This really is the only thing worth discussing. For an elephant, it should not matter an ant's @rse who is in charge in America. Effective articulation backed by brass balls are the only things that should. Everything else is a whine.

Gents, keeping Bakistan on life support has always been a core strategy to keep Indics in check, regardless of who is in power (dems or reps). Would things, with appt. of curry, get any worse than what has been a clear strategy? And, by the way, isn't it funny that all the financing is actually borrowed money from the rest of the world including India. The money they giving Bakistan is not their own. They borrowed it from the world and the world is eagerly lending them not knowing they are ultimately getting @screwed.

Pakistan is very happy with Kerrorist becoming the next SoS. Looks like their SOS calls were answered They couldn't have asked for a better SoS after Al-Quolin-bin-powell.

Like Americans we should talk in two tongues. Tell them we are 'natural allies', tell them we are democracies, tell them we are natural trade allies and want peace. But when it comes to dealing with them, do nothing that enables free monies to TSP. Make them pay else where their interests hurt, like trading with Iran. Develop RAW, even improve covert support to TTP's attacks on American supplied planes and weapons. Even courage them to mount attacks on TSP's nuke facilities and leak statements to press to mean TTP will smuggle nuke materials deep into USA. Make USA think twice when they give goodies to their whore. Ask Indian Americans to kick Kerry like terrorist supporters in the nuts and not vote for them. Do all this while praising Ombaba and extending Mr and Mrs. Ombaba to a red carpet welcome, treat them to some of the finest cuisines and if possible test a nuke while you are at it. And with China when it comes to the matter of USA, we are Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai only, make them suffer for their myopic policies and for blindly supporting terrorism for their short term goals.

posted by Sushupti in "India-US Strategic News and Discussion" Thread

Sushupti wrote:India's next HUGE FP problem - watch the guy squirm at the talk of cutting aid to Pak [7:30]

John Kerrorist is at it again!

posted by Sushupti in "India-US Strategic News and Discussion" Thread

Sushupti wrote:John Kerry: Pakistan hasn’t gotten enough credit for the killing of bin Laden

John Kerrorist may like to spell out in what way did Pakistan help. For hosting and hiding bin Laden?

The US strategy has been to play both sides, India and Pakistan. Obama is expected to have greater focus on India in his second term and we are already seeing a Pakistan-pasand secretary in place, relaxation in funds and arms to Pakistan, and according primacy to Pakistan in its role in Afghanistan etc. India is promised the intangible to shut the Indian mouths while all tangibles accrue to TSP which it then uses against us to our detriment. A few years later, if we look at the intangibles, they amount to little. The same old story is about to repeat itself all over again.

Dependence and expectations from US will lead us no where but disappointments. Past interactions should have taught us that. India too should announce some statement right in US on the lines of "If you are not with us, you are against us in the fight against terrorism and that funding TSP is nothing but financing terrorism". An unequivocal statement from us, will force US to atleast stop playing both sides like TSP does.

Even though American weapons could be better, we fought wars without them in 1971, we can improvise using Russian ones by slapping newer tech and making equally good if not the same. Lets stop the flow of funds to US, Kerry and his gang will fund TSP that India gives to US for the business. So we are beating ourselves with our own stick by giving money to uncle so he can buy a good stick, and use the same stick to beat us with. That is awesome from American point if view. We are funding our own terrorism. Complete foolishness.

To the American John who is rich, the only thing he understands is denial. If we dont allow the John access to woman, what can he do but fume and fret like a kid. Atleat we are not funding our own terrorism. We have worked under technology denial for decades. What can the Americans do? Self reliance is the best way to counter US. Depend on Russians and buy from Europeans lesser of the evil.

Cross-posting a post by sum from "TIRP" Thread

Our newest strategic "ally" uvacha:
India used Afghanistan as second front, financed problems for Pak: Chuck Hagel

In a sharp contrast to US view on India’s role in Afghanistan, US President Barack Obama’s Defence Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel has alleged that India has over the years ‘financed problems’ for Pakistan in the war-torn country.

A video containing these remarks from an unreleased speech of Hagel at Oklahoma’s Cameron University in 2011 was uploaded by Washington Free Beacon, sparking a strong reaction from India which said such comments are “contrary to the reality” of its unbounded dedication to the welfare of Afghans.

Hagel, during the speech said, “India for some time has always used Afghanistan as a second front, and India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border”.

I think for the next four years no US State Secretary or US Defense Secretary should be allowed to visit India or have any discussion anywhere else either with their Indian counterparts.

We can however have meetings with their Commerce and Treasury Secretary!

The chill should be so great that people start asking Obama why he lost India!