Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cold War foolishness led US leaders to "tilt towards Pakistan" then because India had a close relationship with the Soviet Union. Notwithstanding the irony of a supposed promoter of democracy supporting a dictactorship over the worlds largest democracy, this made no sense from a realpolitik perspective. India is the world's second must populous country and the dominant power in South Asia - the US stands to reap far greater benefits from a relationship with India then it does with its much smaller (in both population and economic output) neighbor.
I'm also curious as to how the US is "propping up" India (after basically ignoring it until the mid-nineties). How about some examples?
Cold war foolishness? LOL India was chummy chummy with the Soviets and not to mention the fact Pakistan fit into US plans to keep Soviet influence out of the Middle East. I can give you exact details on how the Pakistan Army was enlarged for this role and what sort of equipment was provided. India as part of the "non-aligned" movement was a non starter for American policy in the region. Besides India got some help when China kicked India's rear in 1962. By the way, this naive very narrow minded thought process that all "dictatorships" are bad is pure nonsense. I can tell you with great authority that Pakistani military Governments were much better for the country than the elected politicians. Pakistan is a complex country and so is this whole region so it makes me laugh when people comment on it like it is some cookie cutter country. The fact is the country does better socially and economically when the military is in charge. It doesn't effect the stability of the country one bit because Pakistan's coups are bloodless and quick. India's political system is just as corrupt as Pakistan's system but the difference is they had their early leaders like Nehru while Pakistan lost all her leaders and was never expected to survive. With time Pakistan will be able to function like a democracy too but the military needs to be in power to help get the country to that point. Pakistan went up in ranking in terms of ease to do business under the previous military Government and was sustaining growth rates of 7%. Musharraf also freed the media and brought real democracy down to the grassroots level by implementing the local bodies system. The other misconception is the fact people think parliament shuts down when the military comes in. This is untrue as elections are held after the parliament is dissolved.
So it makes sense for the US to support Pakistan rather it is being run by the military or the civilians. Pakistan is going to pass the US in population by 2025 and will continue to grow. Pakistan's importance is geo-political and the US cannot afford not to have a relationship with Pakistan. That's why the past few administrations in the White House have worked hard to show Pakistan they will not abandon them again. Their biggest regret was closing the officer exchange program which thankfully has been restarted. One has to understand the region also, India has a TERRIBLE relationship with her neighbors she is seen as a bully. You should take a look at India's relationship with Sri Lanka as an example where Pakistan is preferred. India will never be the dominant power in the region because Pakistan has a large military and nuclear weapons as well. It will always diminish India's influence in the region. Not to mention the fact China is going to prop up Pakistan no matter what considering the country is vital partner and economic transit route necessary to develop China's western provinces.
India doesnt outspends China militarily but is destined to pass it in population. India IIT is well recognized everywhere. China isn't corrupt? Bwahahahaha. Ever do business in china? Did you here about the company that made paper shredders. Its was worth over a 100 million dollars. Chinese managers of the factories stole the company secrets and put them out of business. China doesn't respect patent laws and will see deeper trouble as factories pull out of China. How many people does China execute a year????
You are typically informed by media about China and India. For corruption, India seems have more serious and severe. You did not agree with me because Media never told you about what's going on at India.
For IT industry, I hope you know that IT industry is only a small fraction of the economy. They have over 1 billion people in India, at most have 10 million work in IT. There are also almost 40% people there living below $1.75 per day (which China have about 10%) that advance India by IT industry, obviously No. Chinese, on the other side, different, you can see in Wal-Mart from paper towel to TV and Cell Phone, even Laptop (Lenovo is Chinese brand).
Chinese is covering almost have dominated position in all light industry and advancing faster in high tech industry especially in car engine, aircraft, and etc.
In the long-term, the only contender to U.S is China.
Cold war foolishness? LOL India was chummy chummy with the Soviets and not to mention the fact Pakistan fit into US plans to keep Soviet influence out of the Middle East. I can give you exact details on how the Pakistan Army was enlarged for this role and what sort of equipment was provided. India as part of the "non-aligned" movement was a non starter for American policy in the region. Besides India got some help when China kicked India's rear in 1962. By the way, this naive very narrow minded thought process that all "dictatorships" are bad is pure nonsense. I can tell you with great authority that Pakistani military Governments were much better for the country than the elected politicians. Pakistan is a complex country and so is this whole region so it makes me laugh when people comment on it like it is some cookie cutter country. The fact is the country does better socially and economically when the military is in charge. It doesn't effect the stability of the country one bit because Pakistan's coups are bloodless and quick. India's political system is just as corrupt as Pakistan's system but the difference is they had their early leaders like Nehru while Pakistan lost all her leaders and was never expected to survive. With time Pakistan will be able to function like a democracy too but the military needs to be in power to help get the country to that point. Pakistan went up in ranking in terms of ease to do business under the previous military Government and was sustaining growth rates of 7%. Musharraf also freed the media and brought real democracy down to the grassroots level by implementing the local bodies system. The other misconception is the fact people think parliament shuts down when the military comes in. This is untrue as elections are held after the parliament is dissolved.
So it makes sense for the US to support Pakistan rather it is being run by the military or the civilians. Pakistan is going to pass the US in population by 2025 and will continue to grow. Pakistan's importance is geo-political and the US cannot afford not to have a relationship with Pakistan. That's why the past few administrations in the White House have worked hard to show Pakistan they will not abandon them again. Their biggest regret was closing the officer exchange program which thankfully has been restarted. One has to understand the region also, India has a TERRIBLE relationship with her neighbors she is seen as a bully. You should take a look at India's relationship with Sri Lanka as an example where Pakistan is preferred. India will never be the dominant power in the region because Pakistan has a large military and nuclear weapons as well. It will always diminish India's influence in the region. Not to mention the fact China is going to prop up Pakistan no matter what considering the country is vital partner and economic transit route necessary to develop China's western provinces.
You can apologize for Pakistan's military governments all you want. As for me, the long history of various US administrations supporting one dictatorial regime after another because their leader claimed to be anti-communist has left me jaded and disgusted. As for Pakistan, you might want to take a look at Christopher Hitchens book about trying Henry Kissinger as a war criminal for (among many other similar policies) supporting its brutal actions in attempting to hold on to Bangladesh (it seems they were not so excited about partition when it involved their own territory). All in all, I think Hitchens' book was a bit unfair - why go after Kissinger alone and leave Richard Nixon untainted by history (well not exactly, but you get my drift).
In any case, it made no geopolitical sense to ignore India in favor of it's much smaller rival. No leader who was not blinded by Cold War ideology would have made that choice.
As for Pakistan's lack of success as a nation, my take is somewhat different than yours. When Pakistan's founding fathers decided that India's Muslims could not be ruled by India's Hindus, they were rejecting the shared culture of the subcontinent. Instead of helping to build the new India, they chose separatism and communalism. That's not a particularly strong foundation on which to build a country.
And to your statement about India being seen as a bully in South Asia: I'm sure that is often true. It's similar to China in East Asia, the US in Latin America and Russia in eastern Europe. But I highly doubt that Sri Lanka (or the other non-Muslim countries in the region) would prefer to be bullied by a country that has a blasphemy law that can be used to sentence people to death:
That leaves Bangladesh and the Maldives (as the other South Asian majority Muslim countries). I don't know about the latter, but Bangladesh has already been under Pakistani domination and I doubt it would ever want a repeat of that scenario (unlikely as it may be).
You can apologize for Pakistan's military governments all you want. As for me, the long history of various US administrations supporting one dictatorial regime after another because their leader claimed to be anti-communist has left me jaded and disgusted. As for Pakistan, you might want to take a look at Christopher Hitchens book about trying Henry Kissinger as a war criminal for (among many other similar policies) supporting its brutal actions in attempting to hold on to Bangladesh (it seems they were not so excited about partition when it involved their own territory). All in all, I think Hitchens' book was a bit unfair - why go after Kissinger alone and leave Richard Nixon untainted by history (well not exactly, but you get my drift).
In any case, it made no geopolitical sense to ignore India in favor of it's much smaller rival. No leader who was not blinded by Cold War ideology would have made that choice.
As for Pakistan's lack of success as a nation, my take is somewhat different than yours. When Pakistan's founding fathers decided that India's Muslims could not be ruled by India's Hindus, they were rejecting the shared culture of the subcontinent. Instead of helping to build the new India, they chose separatism and communalism. That's not a particularly strong foundation on which to build a country.
And to your statement about India being seen as a bully in South Asia: I'm sure that is often true. It's similar to China in East Asia, the US in Latin America and Russia in eastern Europe. But I highly doubt that Sri Lanka (or the other non-Muslim countries in the region) would prefer to be bullied by a country that has a blasphemy law that can be used to sentence people to death:
That leaves Bangladesh and the Maldives (as the other South Asian majority Muslim countries). I don't know about the latter, but Bangladesh has already been under Pakistani domination and I doubt it would ever want a repeat of that scenario (unlikely as it may be).
You have no idea what you are talking about, I am actually from the region so I can understand the complexities better. I cannot wait until Modi becomes PM and creates ethnic strife in India.
You have no idea what you are talking about, I am actually from the region so I can understand the complexities better. I cannot wait until Modi becomes PM and creates ethnic strife in India.
Great, now I don't have to waste anymore of my weekend responding to you. But I am saddened that you are hoping for ethnic strife in any country.
You have no idea what you are talking about, I am actually from the region so I can understand the complexities better. I cannot wait until Modi becomes PM and creates ethnic strife in India.
Ridiculous. No wonder south Asia is such a crapshow.
Ridiculous. No wonder south Asia is such a crapshow.
Hey there Mr. Mean Jeans, there are some very complex explanations as to why having a 26% illiteracy rate and over half the population having to use rivers, estuaries, lakes, ponds, and ditches as toilets doesn't discount them from nipping at China's heels as the Next Big Superpower (TM).
Hey there Mr. Mean Jeans, there are some very complex explanations as to why having a 26% illiteracy rate and over half the population having to use rivers, estuaries, lakes, ponds, and ditches as toilets doesn't discount them from nipping at China's heels as the Next Big Superpower (TM).
That was a reaction to the idea of wishing your neighbors to descend into ethnic strife is somehow acceptable. I think that's actually somewhat meaner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
