LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteJUD = PA/ISI... And you already know that......Sorry India can't play israel here.Originally Posted by Tronic
No one if shifting the blame.
Read my post again.BS. 26/11 would have still happened from the "underground".
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
JUD = PA/ISI... And you already know that......Sorry India can't play israel here.
Exactly my point. JuD is not Hezbollah!
Last edited by Tronic; 14 Dec 09, at 15:14.
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
Did it. Need a lot more solid reason to reconsider what I said.
Never said that 26/11 could have been prevented, but that a piss poor Pakistan would feel a larger burden in supporting these groups.
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
You are changing the rules here. So you mean that if JuD is a bigger and more potent threat, then they are legitimate but when they're small timers, they are not.
In other words, it is not ok when a bunch of men sneak into town and blow themselves up but it is perfectly ok for an army to rain down rockets on schools during class time.
And then it is perfectly ok for both Hezbollah and the Israelis to scorch earth over Lebanon who has nothing to do with the war between the two.
Seriously, you're playing the wrong game when trying to blame the Chinese for their UNSC actions. It is a perfect patron-client action and the rules of the real game that is being played. The "Whoa the world is so unfair to me" card falls on deaf ears real fast.
Let me ask you this. Has India ever tried to undermine the Sino-Pak relationship?
Chimo
JuD are no small timers, LeT is a worldwide network, who may just replace AQ in the future; with FBI arresting 2 LeT operatives in the US with possible links to 26/11 and with further planned strikes in the Netherlands, LeT/JuD are hardly small timers. Hezbollah is a conventional force, with their own held territory. If JuD were anything like Hezbollah, India would've been free to hit them hard. But JuD is steeped deep in Pakistani society, they are not a visible entity.
There is no such thing as a perfect patron-client action. China has always been taken into the equation ever since '62, and there should be no illusions that the Indian perspective has solely been Indo-Pak. China has tried to screw India every opportunity and supporting anti-India terror groups is no different. Indian armed forces have been a two front force since '62, and now intelligence wise, it is shaping out to be the same. China used Pakistan to screw India yesterday does not mean they will not use the territories in Northern Myanmar where the Junta has little control to screw India tomorrow.Seriously, you're playing the wrong game when trying to blame the Chinese for their UNSC actions. It is a perfect patron-client action and the rules of the real game that is being played. The "Whoa the world is so unfair to me" card falls on deaf ears real fast.
Let me ask you this. Has India ever tried to undermine the Sino-Pak relationship?
Last edited by Tronic; 14 Dec 09, at 15:37.
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
And did Israel ever stopped hitting Hezbollah even when they were small timers? What about the Munich massacre? Did Israel not hit back one man at a time?
Did Israel not help create Hamas to combat Fatah? India is not Israel but you're using the lack of a visible target is a red herring.
China is willing to fight India down to the last Pakistani. The vetos fits perfectly well with that philosophy.
And you're looking at it wrong, and I mean you personally. The Indian military (and Chinese military ... but not the Pakistani military) establishment has a firmer grasp of the military situation.
Which again gave you the wrong view ... and therefore, the wrong arguement to counter-act the Chinese actions. The Chinese actions were not anti-Indian, they were pro-Pakistan. The end result may be the same to the dead in India but certainly, not the counter-actions that must be taken.
Focusing strictly on the anti-India part does not give you the insight needed to countermand the action. Focusing on the pro-Pakistan part does.
What do you mean now? The Chinese maintained an anti-Indian intel op ever since the Dali Lama and his clique ran into India and the CIA ran a covert insurgency op from Indian soil.
India has at least turned a blind eye to actions launch against China from her soil.
The world is not a nice place. The Chinese don't expect you to play fair. Don't expect the same of anyone.
Chimo
Sir,
That sums it up. They should stop cribbling about the technicalities. We didn't expect China to play fair, we just wanted the movers & shakers to appreciate the "intentions" behind vetoing the drafts.
And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...
Major,
Believe me. In the UN, nothing is upfront. There are a lot of movement behind the scene. Usually, no motion is brought forth if they think a veto is coming. What's the point? The very fact that these motions forced the Chinese to use their veto says a hell of a lot.
Anytime, a veto is used. It is NOT because the vetoing country wanted to use it. They would rather avoid the embarrassement of going against the majority consensus.
Chimo
The plain fact is that India does not have the economic or political muscle (YET) to either coerce China or Pakistan into supporting motions it tables at the UNSC which the two (China and Pakistan) perceive as being inimical to their interests. Furthermore, India is not important enough (YET) for the sole superpower to take up its causes before the UNSC and arm twist China (its biggest trading partner and its biggest sovereign dent holder) into supporting the resolution.
That sounds coarse, doesn't it? But if one were to look at it, geopolitics is about just that-- leveraging your economic, political, military clout to make it too costly for other states for their non-compliance.
India has yet to reach the status of the ruffian who is big enough to threaten others into complying with it. China has. But unfortunately for India, China's national interests in the Sub-Continent align closely with those of Pakistan, which is to-- contain India using whatever means possible, fair or foul, and keep it occupied with its internal problems and to stop it from becoming a rival to China. China is under no obligation whatsoever to not-veto the banning of a terrorist organization (or even for that matter, habitat for humanity) if the organization works towards fulfilling even part of its larger regional strategic objectives, and if its (China's) actions are not bound by any international legal regime.
That may be hard for India to swallow, but that's just the way it is... All India can do now is bid for time for a couple more decades till it reaches the status of a Global Power along the lines of the present day China. Maybe then, maybe, can India bully or influence other insignificants (or even other great powers) into voting for the UN motions that it tables. But right now, no matter how much normative and value laden calls of democracy, human rights, terrorism, human lives lost etc does India invoke, no one (not lest China or Pakistan) is going to give a two hoots about it, lest vote for it.
Right now, India can just sustain casualties and bid for time, bid for time.....
However, as is often the case with great power politics, and also if one were to look at previous historical precedents, the tussle between two powers for supremacy often ends up a zero sum game. One will have its influence significantly curtailed (eg France vis-a-vis UK) or completely decimated (USSR-US). In the end there might just be one standing. The UNSC motion is a part of that tussle...
Totalitarianism-Feudalism in new garbs
I assume you mean the Indian economic/military power to influence "other" states to get pak to change its behavior. Given the trajectory of China in the future the "other" = china. There would be no other players. Heck even the Americans don't want to take on pak unless they absolutely have to and that would be the taliban taking over nukes.
And chinese interests lie in a pak that is antagonistic to India. So that pak will keep buying the chinese weapons, give china a better leverage vis-a-vis CAR/Afghanistan and of-course serve as the ultimate counter-weight to India. At the same time they don't want a pak that spouts terrorism all over the place. IMV in this key point lies a convergence of interest between China & India. This coupled with the increasing economic activity between India & China is the only leverage that India may have over Pak in the future assuming India/Pak are in a state of permanent rivalry which is very likely IMV.
Given these constraints & the rise of China, India will probably never be a great power in the truest sense of the word .... a middle power that slowly integrates itself into the global economy. Will see its influence rise in Africa which will increasingly have a choice between China & India when it comes to selling resources.
Last edited by pChan; 15 Dec 09, at 17:31.
If China can became a true "great" power so can India....and Pakistan (or a China inspired China) cannot keep up with India nor can they hinder India.How has all the **** inspired terror attacks thro the years affected India's progress? They haven't not in the least.
Last edited by calass; 16 Dec 09, at 03:20.
But the answer is so simple that it elludes the Indian leadership. You want both Pakistan and China to faltered? Easy. India makes peace with Pakistan. Within 10 years, you will have a war between the two countries. Pakistan has more in common with the Xinjiang rebels than they do the Han Chinese. Both strategic outlook, other than containing India, do not converge. Pakistan naturally would want to exert leadership in the region ... and leadership would eventually mean giving at first moral, then material support to their Muslim brothers.
Again, I ask has India ever tried to undermine the Sino-Pakistani relationship? The answer is obvious and the follow up unasked question is "why not?"
Chimo
Col,
Given the current feelings about each other, that seems to be a tad difficult. Yes, I realize that even the English and the French finally managed to work together, but under the current climate I am not sure its going to be possible.
And not that it has not been tried, but I guess each side feels once peace is established the other side creates trouble. Please recall Vajpayee's Lahore initiative prior to Kargil and the "Cricket diplomacy" in 2003-2004 and I think Pakistanis think of Operation Meghdoot as a "betrayal of peace".
At present the atmosphere is too charged with 26/11 on one side and the TTP (who are apparently "Indian agents" as per some other forums) on the other.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: