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.
That's not a basis of friendship. Russia only did that in an the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend fashion because Russia hates the US. Meanwhile, Americans are rather indifferent to Russia since the end of the cold war. We don't feel friendship nor hatred for them. We're more perplexed by the ax they grind.
Don't you realize that many countries are friends with Pakistan to provide stability to the region and rotect India and Pakistan from each other?
Do you know that when Indians and Pakistanis immigrate to the United States, they seek each other out as friends?
India and Pakistan need to get over it. Kiss. Make up. Be friends.
The US's complicated relationship with Pakistan is an attempt to protect India and provide stability to the overall region.
Enemy-of-my-enemy? When was India ever considered USA's enemy? India chose to join the Non-Aligned movement during the Cold War, which is, not to side with any of the power blocs at that time. Don't think that would be a justification enough for US to consider India enemy and USSR to court India.
What you say about Pakistan is true to some extent. That region is highly unstable. And with its common border with Afghanistan means that in the world terror fight, Pakistan becomes an important ally.
Also true is the the fact that Indians and Pakistani abroad enjoy each others company. The same is true even when they are visitors in each other's countries. There is an unbelievable level of good-will between the citizens of both nations. It is the leadership that is unable to do the same thing to each other. Ge over it, kiss and make up...sigh! I wish it was that easy. It would take generations before that happens.
Your last line is very inaccurate though. India is more than capable of defending itself against Pakistan. Infact, it is Pakistan that needed to be bailed out by Clinton during the Kargill War. US is in Pak for the easy access to Afghanistan, to keep a check on the militant-Islam breeding in the country and make sure China doesn't become too cozy with Pakistan.
Enemy-of-my-enemy? When was India ever considered USA's enemy? India chose to join the Non-Aligned movement during the Cold War, which is, not to side with any of the power blocs at that time. Don't think that would be a justification enough for US to consider India enemy and USSR to court India.
Don't take the phrase literally. You said Russia stood by India during nuclear tests and sanctions. Russia stepped in because Russia was an enemy of the US. That was my point. Russia wouldn't have supported India if it didn't put it in direct opposition with the US. Russia has a history of opposing the US on almost every issue, supporting countries at odds with the US, etc. That's why I said it's not really a basis of a friendship---because Russia's motives weren't really in the best interest of India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abpat2203
What you say about Pakistan is true to some extent. That region is highly unstable. And with its common border with Afghanistan means that in the world terror fight, Pakistan becomes an important ally.
Long before the US was at war in the middle east, the stability of Pakistan has been vital to the safety of the entire region. The whole middle east is a complicated headache for the US---with no easy solutions. Regardless of who caused the mess to begin with, the mess is there and there's no easy way to fix it. Hang onto your hats over there because the latest developments between Iran vs the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are extremely dangerous. If Saudi Arabia and Turkey attack Iran, all hell is going to break out---in a region that is surrounded by already extremely unstable countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abpat2203
Your last line is very inaccurate though. India is more than capable of defending itself against Pakistan. Infact, it is Pakistan that needed to be bailed out by Clinton during the Kargill War. US is in Pak for the easy access to Afghanistan, to keep a check on the militant-Islam breeding in the country and make sure China doesn't become too cozy with Pakistan.
Clinton refused. Yet Pakistan still occupies those two Indian forward posts to this day. Regardless, I meant from a nuclear standpoint. Since Pakistan has nuclear weapons, the entire region, including India, is at risk if Pakistan becomes extremely unstable. Your focus on Afghanistan is short sighted history-wise. The US has been concerned about stability in Pakistan long before current developments in Afghanistan. When Russia was at war in Afghanistan, Pakistan was at risk which would have put India at risk too. Both of your countries are situated near US interests in the Middle East and Asia while also being near Russia and China, both historical enemies of the US. As a result, stability in India AND Pakistan has always been vital to the United States long before the US's war on terror. As a matter of fact, the US supplied Afghanistan with weapons to push Russia out of Afghanistan via the help of Pakistan bacl in the early 1980s.
Don't take the phrase literally. You said Russia stood by India during nuclear tests and sanctions. Russia stepped in because Russia was an enemy of the US. That was my point. Russia wouldn't have supported India if it didn't put it in direct opposition with the US. Russia has a history of opposing the US on almost every issue, supporting countries at odds with the US, etc. That's why I said it's not really a basis of a friendship---because Russia's motives weren't really in the best interest of India.
Not only Russia but France and Israel did not impose sanctions on India as well.
Quote:
However, other nations, such as Israel, France and Russia, did not condemn India's tests. Israel issued a statement praising India's tests and declaring that India's reasons for carrying out nuclear tests were the same as Israel's
Clinton refused. Yet Pakistan still occupies those two Indian forward posts to this day. Regardless, I meant from a nuclear standpoint. Since Pakistan has nuclear weapons, the entire region, including India, is at risk if Pakistan becomes extremely unstable.
Pakistan asked for US intervention to de-escelate the situation. Clinton refused to intervene until Pakistan pulled back it forces from the border. By the end of the war, India had complete control over all its territory along the Line Of Control. Kargil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What you say about the risk of the conflict escalating to nuclear war is true. Recent reports have suggested that Pakistan was ready to take the Nuclear course in face of a humiliating defeat and India crossing into Pakistan territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes
Your focus on Afghanistan is short sighted history-wise. The US has been concerned about stability in Pakistan long before current developments in Afghanistan. When Russia was at war in Afghanistan, Pakistan was at risk which would have put India at risk too. Both of your countries are situated near US interests in the Middle East and Asia while also being near Russia and China, both historical enemies of the US. As a result, stability in India AND Pakistan has always been vital to the United States long before the US's war on terror. As a matter of fact, the US supplied Afghanistan with weapons to push Russia out of Afghanistan via the help of Pakistan bacl in the early 1980s.
I have been recently reading The Looming Tower which says that Pakistan was definitely at risk of a Soviet invasion, had Afghanistan gone down tamely. I could not find a single reference anywhere of a Soviet plan on invasion of India. And yes, I am aware of the join effort by US and Pakistan to supply the Afghan mujaheddin with weapons to fight against USSR.
Funny you should ask. I'm just about to up and go and leave the USA... Will I ever find the perfect country? Big Smile. Absolutely no. There is no such thing. But some countries are easier and more fun to negotiate. I also think that I've never been anywhere where I didn't get some good, and I didn't ever go anywhere, where there wasn't some bad.
That's not a basis of friendship. Russia only did that in an the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend fashion because Russia hates the US. Meanwhile, Americans are rather indifferent to Russia since the end of the cold war. We don't feel friendship nor hatred for them. We're more perplexed by the ax they grind.
And you will remain perplexed if you keep on listening the official American propaganda))))
(I'd be very perplexed on this subject too, if all I'd be listening were FOX, CNN and the rest...)
I sort of naively asked the opening question to this thread although I normally don't consider myself to be naive at all.
I am somewhat shocked that so many countries do not have any real friends or only have "friends" for strategic reasons. I suppose that it is not really a surprise, but I did not expect to find so much open enmity. The need to always be superior to one's neighbor or to find fault with them appears to be a sad reality.
Clinton refused. Yet Pakistan still occupies those two Indian forward posts to this day. Regardless, I meant from a nuclear standpoint. Since Pakistan has nuclear weapons, the entire region, including India, is at risk if Pakistan becomes extremely unstable. Your focus on Afghanistan is short sighted history-wise. The US has been concerned about stability in Pakistan long before current developments in Afghanistan. When Russia was at war in Afghanistan, Pakistan was at risk which would have put India at risk too. Both of your countries are situated near US interests in the Middle East and Asia while also being near Russia and China, both historical enemies of the US. As a result, stability in India AND Pakistan has always been vital to the United States long before the US's war on terror. As a matter of fact, the US supplied Afghanistan with weapons to push Russia out of Afghanistan via the help of Pakistan bacl in the early 1980s.
Oh wait, so whom do Americans are fighting now in Afghanistan? The very same mujaheddins that Russians were trying to push out of there back in the 80ies? Imagine that - not only the US might have the "US interests" in certain regions, but Russians might have them too.
And it happened to be so, that for Russians ( with their historically sizable Islamic population) the radical Islamic mujaheddin government on their border was not a good thing. ( I don't even need to mention the amount of drugs that is flooding Russia now from Afghanistan through the porous Tajikistan borders, while America is fighting the war over there.)
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.
)
