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.
I didn't dig much into the specifics so I don't know about the validity of the accusations.
Well the average person would not know the validity of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciTydude123
"Western democracy" or everywhere else we're talking assassination attempts, does it make a difference who did it? There is nothing such as one side is good and the other is evil, and nothing is surprising. The fact of whether it's you or the other who did it, the effect is the same.
The difference is that US perceives itself to be all powerful, and it dominates the global information space enough to have most of the world's media sympathetic towards its cause. So it do stuff like bragging about its assassination of the Iranian general and get away with it, whereas if its adversaries did the same they'll be attacked left and right for eons.
I wasn't getting into a good or evil argument. I was just writing as I saw it in that this would peak the interest of the five eye countries. There wouldn't be 5 eyes intelligence unless these nations were geopolitically aligned and the fact that it appears the Indian government or Indian governmental agents had a hand in this is definitely not the norm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciTydude123
You're right in that the Five Eyes intelligence is all interconnected and collaborating. Afaik none of the other 4 countries publicly mentioned their position but I think it's likely they would have first agreed for Canada to make the allegations.
I'll have to edit... I read your comment again and I see I misinterpreted your last sentence. Your point is valid just as if the US doing it on Iran is less shocking.
They may never publicly disclose their position. Geopolitics is like that but they don't have to to send messages diplomatically. I don't think this incident is going to have a major geopolitical ripple, but I do think that if you are a 5 eye country, you're probably going to be keeping a closer eye on India and managing that relationship based on the assumption that they may go further than expected if they feel their interests are not being accounted for.
India isn't thrilled with Canada housing Kalistani separatists. Nijjar wasn't a nice guy. He wasn't just a 'Plumber' and I wouldn't be at all surprised he was behind some background machinations that caused problems and even potentially violence in India. On the other hand, Canada is more liberal with Freedom of expression than India is so I can see there would be a natural tension between the two.
I wasn't getting into a good or evil argument. I was just writing as I saw it in that this would peak the interest of the five eye countries. There wouldn't be 5 eyes intelligence unless these nations were geopolitically aligned and the fact that it appears the Indian government or Indian governmental agents had a hand in this is definitely not the norm.
They may never publicly disclose their position. Geopolitics is like that but they don't have to to send messages diplomatically. I don't think this incident is going to have a major geopolitical ripple, but I do think that if you are a 5 eye country, you're probably going to be keeping a closer eye on India and managing that relationship based on the assumption that they may go further than expected if they feel their interests are not being accounted for.
Yes I stand corrected with you about the good bad thing. I'll admit the general sentiments around this has got me a bit sensitive.
Yes that's what I believe as well. Maybe a bit of a dent in the relationship but over the long run the importamce of India to the US agenda, as well as India's position that it benefits from friendly relations with everyone will override it.
Anglo countries might have to manage the relationship but if what I said in my first post was true, then does a large part of it have to do with their own position?
Like you implied it's all speculation and we don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but I get sense that the Anglo powers has a bit of a "if you're not for us then you're against us" attitude going on. "You can't be friends with our adversaries or else you're our adversary yourself."
India historically has and continues to have very friendly ties with Russia which you can't blame because they're reaping the benefits. It might have a few border disputes with China but there's also other areas where their interests align and it's better for them to coorporate. So perhaps the US attempt to seduce them into a bulwark against its adversaries wasn't really realistic in the first place.
Yes I stand corrected with you about the good bad thing. I'll admit the general sentiments around this has got me a bit sensitive.
Yes that's what I believe as well. Maybe a bit of a dent in the relationship but over the long run the importamce of India to the US agenda, as well as India's position that it benefits from friendly relations with everyone will override it.
Anglo countries might have to manage the relationship but if what I said in my first post was true, then does a large part of it have to do with their own position?
Like you implied it's all speculation and we don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but I get sense that the Anglo powers has a bit of a "if you're not for us then you're against us" attitude going on. "You can't be friends with our adversaries or else you're our adversary yourself."
India historically has and continues to have very friendly ties with Russia which you can't blame because they're reaping the benefits. It might have a few border disputes with China but there's also other areas where their interests align and it's better for them to coorporate. So perhaps the US attempt to seduce them into a bulwark against its adversaries wasn't really realistic in the first place.
If this is indeed true, we are in for a bumpy geopolitical ride. The fact of the matter is the world has changed, and the post WWII playbook of offering protection and money to gain a nation's allegiance isn't going work. The great powers and to a lesser extent the 2nd rate powers don't need U.S. protection. While money (defining this as economic assistance) would be nice, it comes with strings. With this being the case Anglo countries as you put it need to drop the notion of "no neutral status" "for us or against us" way of thinking.
That's ironic since all this BRICS non-sense started because a Western economist from Goldman Sachs, called Jim O’Neill, coined the acronym BRICs in 2001 to describe the collective grouping of the four "emerging" market economies - Brazil, Russia, India and China.
I'm Brazilian and I admit that when the actual "bloc" started to be formed, back in 2009, I thought that could be a good idea, since it could bring some good opportunities to Brazil in terms of trade and of technological exchange. Remember at that time the president of Russia was Dmitry Medvedev and the president of China was Hu Jintao. That was before the "Arab spring" and all the geopolitical mess that started after that, and way before the invasion of Crimea.
Back then, I didn't see it as something with the aim of "confronting the West" since I think Brazil is a Western country (as the other Latin American countries, after all we speak European languages - Spanish, Portuguese - the majority religion is Christianity, and most countries are democracies with constitutions inspired by the constitutions of European countries).
Today I think BRICS was actually a terrible idea, Brazil didn't gain ANYTHING from this, and now we are "friends" with Russia and China, that I personally call the new Axis of Evil.
I think Brazil and India should distance themselves from China and Russia, and choose the democracies as their allies (not only Western democracies, but the Asian democracies as well, like Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia).
Brazil is the only country brave enough to express vociferously. "While the US dollar appreciates, the exchange rate between developing nations and the United States tends to widen. As a result, dollar-denominated debt owed by developing nations increases and becomes unmanageable."
"Brazilian Social researcher Marco Fernades explain how some Latin-American countries, for example, have already found ways to avoid the dollar when trading.
He also makes a very interesting observation about something that unites the currencies of all (pre-expansion) BRICS nations" Aug 24, 2023
If this is indeed true, we are in for a bumpy geopolitical ride. The fact of the matter is the world has changed, and the post WWII playbook of offering protection and money to gain a nation's allegiance isn't going work. The great powers and to a lesser extent the 2nd rate powers don't need U.S. protection. While money (defining this as economic assistance) would be nice, it comes with strings. With this being the case Anglo countries as you put it need to drop the notion of "no neutral status" "for us or against us" way of thinking.
I think India's being told to pick a side when it doesn't want to.
Either way the world is heading into a bloc confrontation scenario.
It's enlightening to compare the agenda of older US foreign policy to the one of today. In the early 70s during the Nixon years there was USSR and Mao China, both communist. The USSR was the bigger adversary at the time, so the US seduced China (Nixon visiting China, sent sports teams, changed recognition from ROC to PRC and more) to turn them against the USSR. And it worked. It helped to create the Sino Soviet split.
Do you think the US actually liked Mao China at the time, just coming towards the end of the Cultural Revolution?
Today China is the bigger power and if the same US 70s agenda applied today, then the US would be attempting to seduce Russia to turn them against China.
Instead we all know what's going on. Look Blinken's recent speech at Johns Hopkins university. "We good democracy, they bad authoritarians, must be crushed at all costs".
These sentiments work as long as you're an absolute hegemon and no one else has the power to challenge your position, like the US of 20 years ago, but today that's increasingly turning into a different story.
Last edited by ciTydude123; 09-27-2023 at 01:03 AM..
These sentiments work as long as you're an absolute hegemon and no one else has the power to challenge your position, like the US of 20 years ago, but today that's increasingly turning into a different story.
Sure and this geopolitical push to bring India 'on side' really accelerated after the 'no limits' friendship between China and Russia and the Ukraine war.
The bigger question however is which of the great powers do we want to see with more power and influence over world affairs. China and Russia as Jr partners or the U.S and its allies.
Granted, It isn't so simple as picking sides. Trade for example is still heavy between China and the U.S as example. I'm just saying in terms of geopolitics.
Sure and this geopolitical push to bring India 'on side' really accelerated after the 'no limits' friendship between China and Russia and the Ukraine war.
The bigger question however is which of the great powers do we want to see with more power and influence over world affairs. China and Russia as Jr partners or the U.S and its allies.
Granted, It isn't so simple as picking sides. Trade for example is still heavy between China and the U.S as example. I'm just saying in terms of geopolitics.
We can look at it as us vs them, but if you're in a African country or many other parts of the world, you probably prefer a balance, since such an environment allows your nation to extract greater concessions. In such a world India, Vietnam, Indonesia do very well. Vietnam is the greatest example. When China was perceived as weak, the U.S. kept Vietnam under sanctions. Once it became clear that Vietnam could be become a useful tool against China, all sudden all is forgiven. Not to mention promises of economic cooperation. Isn't that interesting. At one point the Vietnamese government was the walking embodiment of evil and worthy of spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing tens of thousands of men to defeat. Now "hey they're not so bad guys." Thus, the world of geopolitics. On the other end
On the other end, now China in an effort to prevent Vietnam from migrating into the Western sphere of cooperation gives concessions and offers economic support.
We can look at it as us vs them, but if you're in a African country or many other parts of the world, you probably prefer a balance, since such an environment allows your nation to extract greater concessions. In such a world India, Vietnam, Indonesia do very well. Vietnam is the greatest example. When China was perceived as weak, the U.S. kept Vietnam under sanctions. Once it became clear that Vietnam could be become a useful tool against China, all sudden all is forgiven. Not to mention promises of economic cooperation. Isn't that interesting. At one point the Vietnamese government was the walking embodiment of evil and worthy of spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing tens of thousands of men to defeat. Now "hey they're not so bad guys." Thus, the world of geopolitics. On the other end
On the other end, now China in an effort to prevent Vietnam from migrating into the Western sphere of cooperation gives concessions and offers economic support.
i can see the hypocrisy of it all. The question is would we want to live in a world without a U.S influence. I guess that obviously depends on who you ask but given where i'm tucked away, the answer would be no.
We can look at it as us vs them, but if you're in a African country or many other parts of the world, you probably prefer a balance, since such an environment allows your nation to extract greater concessions. In such a world India, Vietnam, Indonesia do very well. Vietnam is the greatest example. When China was perceived as weak, the U.S. kept Vietnam under sanctions. Once it became clear that Vietnam could be become a useful tool against China, all sudden all is forgiven. Not to mention promises of economic cooperation. Isn't that interesting. At one point the Vietnamese government was the walking embodiment of evil and worthy of spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing tens of thousands of men to defeat. Now "hey they're not so bad guys." Thus, the world of geopolitics. On the other end
On the other end, now China in an effort to prevent Vietnam from migrating into the Western sphere of cooperation gives concessions and offers economic support.
Vietnam has far more beef with China than the US. I’m not sure how you could perceive it any other way, as they’ve had an antagonistic relationship with China for a much greater period of time. The US made the mistake of supporting French attempts at recolonisation following the end of WW2.
If you want an ASEAN country that is more neutral in its balancing act between China and the West, Indonesia would be a much better example. Vietnam and the Philippines are much closer to the West.
i can see the hypocrisy of it all. The question is would we want to live in a world without a U.S influence. I guess that obviously depends on who you ask but given where i'm tucked away, the answer would be no.
Within the traditional Western bloc the US isn't going anywhere and China isn't looking to replace it. It's the other parts of the world which has a choice, especially those which to put mildly, aren't satisfied with the current US system.
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.
