| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| India, China, Russia call for fairer world order |
| 2007-02-14 |
| Posted by:ed |
| #21 India, China and Russia Call for Fairer World Order This from: India, who burns wives when their husbands die and shuns people into misery and poverty because they are from lower "castes". Russia, who turns veteran amputees into homeless people in train stations and gives mobsters rule over every facet of life. China, who mows down people who protest for freedom of speech and corners the world market on intellectual property theft. Yeah, quite the mascots of "fair", those three. |
| Posted by: Jules 2007-02-14 22:54 |
| #20 MIL FORUMS > there are Netters claiming to be from India whom doubt India's ability to become a future superpower. DELHI TIMES.com > November 2005 > Insia's Govt is uncertain how to deal effectively wid various armed ethnic separatists + anti-Western/Moder Socialists + Radicals in its northern cities and provinces. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-14 19:25 |
| #19 |
| Posted by: john 2007-02-14 16:41 |
| #18 Note that India abetted Bangladesh's secession from Pakistan with an armed invasion The Indian invasion stopped a genocide. But not before the Pakistan army murdered 1-3 million Bengali people. The Kashmir jihad was launched just months after the Afghan campaign was shut down. Pakistan was able to reorient the jihadis towards Kashmir. They would have done this even without the Bangladesh secession simply because they were able to. Anytime Pakistan has felt it had local military superiority and could attack India behind a facade of 'freedom fighters' it has. |
| Posted by: john 2007-02-14 16:18 |
| #17 That's because India's less reliable than France. Tell me about the Indian special forces units that are fighting in Afghanistan. You mean there aren't any? But I thought India was our best buddy? The coalition in Afghanistan doesn't include India because that would totally freak out Pakistan. That was one demand that Perv made for cooperation with the US. The coalition in fact includes no troops from countries that border Afghanistan or have interest there. That means no Iranians , No Pakistanis, No Indians, No Russians. There are probably Indian SF in Afghanistan, just not there legally. India operates an airbase with helicopters and fighters in Uzbekistan. It was at Ayni Airbase that the Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood died after the suicide bomb attack on the day before 9/11. India operates a military hosipital there for the Northern alliance. Its military trainers are there. It has SF there. |
| Posted by: john 2007-02-14 16:13 |
| #16 Practically speaking, we, as in the US, needs to create a new perpetually assembled "round table", like the UNSC used to be. Voting members are the US, Russia, China, India, Japan, and the EU. But you only get a vote if you commit a large number of military personnel to whatever situation is on the floor. Vetoes are only operational vetoes, not mission vetoes. Any time any member wants to do something, it announces it, and asks if others want to join in, or have military objections to it. Members can veto only by threatening each other over actions. If they won't put their money where there mouth is, they have no veto. Whining does nothing. Operational control is the other veto. This amounts to two or more participants agreeing to split the mission. If one doesn't want to do what the other does, then it doesn't. That is its operational veto. This is not a round table of friends. This is a round table of enemies. Working in contention instead of faux alliance will often produce far more positive results than playing nice. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-02-14 15:49 |
| #15 India has done a ton for development of Afghanistan after the Taleban--with billions of US$ in aid (second only to the US) and building hospitals, roads, and educational institutions, to the extent that Hamid Karzai calls India one of his greatest allies. The new Afghani Parliament was built by India as well. Not good enough for you? |
| Posted by: sludge 2007-02-14 13:15 |
| #14 ZF: Like I said, trade with India - just count on it. That should have read: Like I said, trade with India - just don't count on it. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-02-14 13:11 |
| #13 S: You seem to jump on any inkling of a reason to bash India... will rarely, if ever, comment on any Indian stories that are positive, but come in full force at anything remotely negative. You're not a Pakistani in disguise, are you? :) That's because India's less reliable than France. Tell me about the Indian special forces units that are fighting in Afghanistan. You mean there aren't any? But I thought India was our best buddy? Like I said, trade with India - just count on it. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-02-14 13:10 |
| #12 Wait I just went to your blog... Chinese-centric. Explains it. I'm sure you'd find even Pakistan more trustworthy than India. Regardless, if you are going to suggest that India will be with us only as long as they need us, you are probably right... And that is exactly why we are courting India now as well--we would like to have them on our side. Otherwise, if India were a small nation with minor potential, do you honestly thing we would give a damn about them? It works both ways. |
| Posted by: sludge 2007-02-14 13:10 |
| #11 And, the France of Lafayette's day is NOT the Phrawnce of today, Zhang. Jeebus, man, quit drinking the kool aid. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-02-14 13:07 |
| #10 Zhang Fei, You seem to jump on any inkling of a reason to bash India... will rarely, if ever, comment on any Indian stories that are positive, but come in full force at anything remotely negative. You're not a Pakistani in disguise, are you? :) The Bangladesh "war" was in 1971... long after Kashmir became a bitter issue. Kashmir became bitter right after partition when 100's of thousands on both sides died in the name of religion. |
| Posted by: sludge 2007-02-14 12:57 |
| #9 All three nations have Islamic problems. All three are great powers. They should have created a working relationship long ago. Military as well as trade. If they are trading they are less likely to be fighting. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-02-14 12:19 |
| #8 Note also that France sent Lafayette. India might send scrap metal dealers. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-02-14 11:49 |
| #7 SS: We are setting the bar pretty low here as far as steadfast allies are concerned. India will always be there for us when it needs us. Note that India abetted Bangladesh's secession from Pakistan with an armed invasion. If it hadn't, I seriously doubt that the Kashmir situation would be quite as bitter as it has been - imagine if Uncle Sam backed the secession of Tamil Nadu from India with an armed invasion. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-02-14 11:45 |
| #6 The ponies are on their way! |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-02-14 11:03 |
| #5 This is why India will never be as steadfast an American ally as France. We are setting the bar pretty low here as far as steadfast allies are concerned. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-02-14 10:56 |
| #4 I call on India, China and Russia to go fuck themselves. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-02-14 10:24 |
| #3 I have an idea. Countries should be expected to match the contribution of US to world GDP per capita, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Fair is fair, right? |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2007-02-14 10:14 |
| #2 Translation, (Bang spoon on High Chair) "We wanna be boss, Waaahh, Waaah, Whine." |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-02-14 10:10 |
| #1 India, China, Russia call for fairer world order A more accurate title would be: India, China, Russia: Pay me! This is why India will never be as steadfast an American ally as France. Trade with India, but never count on it. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-02-14 10:06 |