Article

2010-09-12 India-Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-09-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 Fallout from the Afghanistan disaster.

Posted by phil_b 2010-09-12 09:29|| 2010-09-12 09:29|| Front Page Top

#2 Democracies don't throwout the institutions; they throwout the bums instead. Look for a change at the polls.

Posted by Mike Ramsey 2010-09-12 10:03|| 2010-09-12 10:03|| Front Page Top

#3 Aside from our desire to appease the crooks who run the BS non-nation called P.A.K.I.stan, is there a good reason that we do not have a robust, full-blown alliance with India?

Posted by lex 2010-09-12 10:23|| 2010-09-12 10:23|| Front Page Top

#4 Indian democracy is bizarre to say the least. That it has survived this long is truly a credit to the British, without whom India could have devolved to Afghanistan writ large.

Only recently, since just before the time of George W. Bush, did India finally get a president and foreign secretary with their heads on straight. They brought more quiet, good change to India than had been seen in 50 years or more.

To his credit, George W. realized this, though no one else in Washington did, and helped it considerably.

While it couldn't last for long, it at least gave one generation the idea of how things might be, if the Indian government gets its act together.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-09-12 10:24|| 2010-09-12 10:24|| Front Page Top

#5 ... is there a good reason that we do not have a robust, full-blown alliance with India?

Historically, India didn't want to play ball with the USA in its cold war policies against the Soviet Union.

The ball has always been in in India's court. India can have better relations with the USA if it wants them.

Posted by Mike Ramsey 2010-09-12 10:32|| 2010-09-12 10:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Moose, your thesis is contradicted by Pakistan.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-09-12 11:07|| 2010-09-12 11:07|| Front Page Top

#7 I know people (the term used solely for the purposes of reference) who been waiting for millitary coup in Israel for 60 years.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-09-12 11:09|| 2010-09-12 11:09|| Front Page Top

#8 g(r)omgoru: If the Muslim parts of India had remained with India, I don't think India could have survived this long. They were never really part of India, which became evident after the Sepoy Mutiny.

By 1930, in addition to everyone being tired of the British, the Hindus and Muslims were vigorously abrading on each other, with the British trying to keep from becoming too great a bloodbath. So when the British finally left, the two choices were either bloodbath or division.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-09-12 11:34|| 2010-09-12 11:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Separation or "aparthied" is sometimes necessary. Living in Georgia, I annually treat the exterior perimeter of my house, out to about 3-5 meters from the foundation. Cost me about $ 65. per year. It keeps the BUGS OUT!

Posted by Besoeker 2010-09-12 12:02|| 2010-09-12 12:02|| Front Page Top

#10 So, you agree that's not the British Institutional Heritage but the paucity of Muslims that made India work?

p.s. Re British Institutional Heritage, a large part of Africa was British.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-09-12 13:50|| 2010-09-12 13:50|| Front Page Top

#11 A cynical person might argue that the success of a nation is inversely proportional to the percentage of Muslims in the population.

Posted by SteveS 2010-09-12 15:05|| 2010-09-12 15:05|| Front Page Top

#12 Which I guess is why North Korea and Zimbabwe are both so successful.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-09-12 15:42|| 2010-09-12 15:42|| Front Page Top

#13 Living in the UK i find the indians harworking decent people who cannot believe why USA have any relationship with two faced victimhood muslims who hate everything the West stand for.

They believe that India could do the World a favour and crush Pakistan if the USA allowed them to!

Posted by Paul D 2010-09-12 16:41|| 2010-09-12 16:41|| Front Page Top

#14 Both Radical Islam's + China's strategic focii 2010-2020/2025 is on ASIA-MAJOR = EAST-SOUTH ASIA + PERIPHERALS, aka RUSS-CHINA-INDIA sub-aka WHERE THE POST-COLD WAR "FREE/CHEAP NUKES" ARE. THe other World regions are SIDESHOWS = "SECOND/TERTIARY FRONTS" FOR NOW.

The Militants will be A'COMIN, SOON ENOUGH, SAVE WILL BE NUCLEAR [Nukes-WMDS] when they're ready.

* AUGUST 2010 > US VOTER-POLL SUPPORT FOR WOT > = Still comes down to "BETTER OVER THERE, NOT OVER HERE".

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-09-12 19:14|| 2010-09-12 19:14|| Front Page Top

#15 Paul D,
IMHO, India wouldn't win a war with Pakistan. And if they did, what would they do with it? Occupy it? The Pak government doesn't appear able to occupy all of Pakistan; why should India expect to do it any better?

Posted by Mike Ramsey 2010-09-12 23:07|| 2010-09-12 23:07|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:58 trailing wife
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:47 Anonymoose
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:19 Eric Jablow
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:07 Mike Ramsey
23:03 CrazyFool
22:59 Barbara Skolaut
21:59 Skidmark
21:39 Anonymoose
21:30 Shieldwolf
20:52 Angie Schultz
20:51 Nimble Spemble
20:40 Black Charlie Chinemble5313
20:39 Cyber Sarge
20:35 Angie Schultz
20:19 Pappy