Quote:
Originally Posted by FibrillatorD
Should be interesting to see how Kissinger's realist-ethic plays out.
Would it be pragmatic or only inflamatory for a big non-Arab country (besides Iran) like India to assume even a strictly diplomatic role in steering the future of Iraq? Are the benefits to India of seeing a "successful" Iraq (or a peaceful Palestine, or a peaceful Kurdistan, for that matter) so much less than the potential costs to diplomatic clout?
|
It will be in the interest to have a peaceful Middle East where the interests of the Arabs, Persians and Israelis are met.
Arabs for oil, Persians for its gas, and Israelis for its weapon systems!
Given these highly contradictory requirements to reconcile, India can only pussyfoot and give ambiguous statements full of piety!
Beyond that I don't think India will lift a finger!
It must also be remembered that the current govt of India is in office because of Communist support and they are highly anti US or its ally, except for the Chief Minister of Bengal, who is a pragmatic Communist who knows which side of the bread is buttered and he is having a real tough time with the 'Lenin of Indian Communism" i.e. the previous Chief Minister, Jyoti Basu, who is 90 plus years old and still walks around the corridors of power without assistance! Jyoti Basu is the Ghost Who Walks!
Sorry for the digression, but I get a wee bit charged up whenever I have to comment on this Ghost who Walks!
__________________
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA