Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23

Thread: The real axis of evil - US, Israel & India

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I know, Joe,
    Almost 3000 Americans killed in 9/11. Innocents. Mostly, people who had a 9-5 job. It boils my blood even now that Pakistan has been and will continue to be the terrorist country it is, without it being taken into account even once. The issue is with our politicians. Had US bombed Pakistan alongwith Afghanistan post 9/11, the world would have been a much safer place. But I guess these measures are not in our hands. People get killed everyday from Pak sponsored terrorism, but hardly anyone cares. I'm also seeing a gradual shift of US policies, that if I may say didn't work for decades, towards punishing Pakistan.
    The US doesn't need to bomb anything. All it would require is a threat to use its considerable influence to "discourage" the IMF and the world bank from repeatedly bailing Pakistan out of its debt trap in addition to stopping aid and weapons. This will never happen of course. The US state department has always considered Pakistan as an ally regardless of how much anyone tries to prove otherwise. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    The US doesn't need to bomb anything. All it would require is a threat to use its considerable influence to "discourage" the IMF and the world bank from repeatedly bailing Pakistan out of its debt trap in addition to stopping aid and weapons. This will never happen of course. The US state department has always considered Pakistan as an ally regardless of how much anyone tries to prove otherwise. I don't see this changing anytime soon.
    You're not wrong, but if US did that, Pak would tilt to China even more and take riskier bets vis-a-vis India and Afghanistan. We don't want bombs going off in Indian metros killing 100s. It's a different case whether China would bail the Paks out again and again. But, a country with a massive terror infrastructure and nukes, failing because of its economy would be a poor choice to make. Let's leave the terrorists groups for a sec, ordinary Paks many of who are armed would try to get their hands on a tactical nuke should Pak fall, and sell it on the black market. It will be a nightmare. It's a good thing that the US is not abandoning Afghanistan, and from time to time throws a piece of bone at the Paks. This helps keep the American leverage in Pak alive. And it helps us in getting intel from the US.

    Just think, why hasn't India shut down it's embassy in Pak, expel Pak diplomats from India and stop all exchanges. I would love that, infact some years back I wanted that. But that doesn't help us in any way. India would lose whatever leverage it has in Pak, being in Pak.

    A lot of people think US is playing both sides. Fair enough, but I am not too sure of that. Maybe down the line, after 20 years we'll know that. But I think US cannot afford to leave Pak alone, that is not in their national security interests.

    ** By bombing Pak, I meant bombing terrorist infrastructure and accidentally dropping a bunker buster in GHQ. Oops!

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    China, the new global leader?

    The roles have reversed: The United States (US) and the West from being champions of openness, lasses faire, free trade and responsible economic behaviour are suddenly looking inwards cum turning protectionist, and China – once regarded to be a closed kingdom – takes over as the new global economic leader by choosing to look outwards.

    Today, it promotes increased global trade, cross-invests its surplus in poor and developing economies, bids to connect the world through its one belt-one road vision, and from being a violator of green houses gases it, more than any other industrial nation of the world, champions the cause of environmental protection.

    Anyone accusing Chinese motives to be driven by greed will have a hard time explaining its rationale, as Chinese investment goes to regions that are high risk, poor or developing and may not necessarily yield high returns; at least in the short-term.

    Recipients include: Pakistan $50 billion, Indonesia $40 billion; Sri Lanka $20 billion, Myanmar: $10 billion, Liberia $6 billion, Kenya $15 billion, Iran $20 billion, the list goes on as the total outlay under the one belt-one road connectivity vision is set to surpass $1 trillion.

    They believe that they can not only harness a great opportunity to develop, but also gain access to new markets, which otherwise would have been impossible to reach.
    Also, by connecting so closely to China they feel that they will progress by simply piggybacking the most vibrant economy of the world.

    Obviously the US and the West would like to think otherwise, but the pendulum has perhaps already shifted and despite concerns being raised by them on China’s real economic health, the latest figures reveal otherwise.

    China’s economy grew by a healthy 6.
    9 percent year on year in the first half of this year (data from the National Bureau of Statistics released in July, 2017), and this has attracted considerable international attention.

    Also, the latest reports from the World Bank and the IMF tend to be generally optimistic about China’s growth, believing that China’s strong growth showing in infrastructure-investment and domestic consumption well support its goal of achieving an economic structure that sustains itself on in-house dynamics rather than having an over-dependence on international markets.

    Meanwhile, China’s economic management philosophy in recent years has transitioned significantly.

    It is revisiting its toxic assets’ accumulation by ringing reforms in its national debt management practices; reducing overall financial risk by introducing responsible lending in its banking sector; and endeavouring to reduce excess manufacturing capacity by instead focusing on productivity.

    And the results on these steps are also already reflecting in recent figures: Value addition in high-tech industry showed an increase of 13.
    1 percent year-on-year.

    Online domestic consumption increased 33.
    4 percent year-on-year.
    The number of daily average new registered enterprises has moved up to 15,600.
    All this eye-catching data in China’s interim report bears testimony to the fact that its economy is finally seeing new drivers of growth.

    However, the question then arises that if China is in essence vying to generate home grown growth then why is it investing so heavily abroad? Since the financial logic behind China’s spree of overseas mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is often hard to define, the answer to this question may also not be very cut and dry in financial terms and have more to do with attaining glory that takes China back to the economic leadership days of the Ming Dynasty.

    In the last 6 months alone, Chinese companies have announced cross-border deals worth $107 billion.

    Few bring any of the financial benefits typical of conventional M&A.
    So-called synergies are usually absent, and the buyers generally tend to leave the incumbent management in place.
    Analyze this more deeply and three factors seem to be at play: The first and probably the most likely driver is the desire to acquire foreign technology and management expertise.

    For example, the $43 billion offer by the China National Chemical Corporation, known as ChemChina, for Syngenta, the Swiss pesticide and seed giant, fits into this category.
    So does the $5billion bid by Midea, the Chinese appliance maker, for Kuka, the German robotics company.

    Such deals/offers appear to be motivated by the fact that even a minority stake may bring seats on the board of a target company and afford access to information otherwise behind closed doors.

    Such deals that are perceived to be in the national interest also benefit from cheap finance: China’s state owned banks lend at interest rate of 2% to finance acquisitions involving new technology or expertise.

    Second, some of these Chinese acquisitions represent a search for value, compared with inflated asset prices at home.
    Chinese equities still look expensive: Shares on mainland exchanges trade at an average premium of 36 percent to shares in the same companies listed in Hong Kong.
    Overseas purchases also provide a hedge against currency devaluation, as well as diversification.

    For example, given the cheap financing available to most M&A, this notion perfectly fits the bill for China’s Anbang Insurance Group’s offer of $14 billion to Starwood hotels – the bid though was not accepted! Lastly, the third factor: These can be termed as ‘trophy’ purchases for China.

    They may lack financial logic but are a part of a broader political calculus.
    President Xi Jinping’s love of football helps explain the recent rush by Chinese buyers to purchase European football clubs.
    And when Mr.
    Xi recently visited New York, he stayed at the Anbang-owned Waldorf Astoria hotel – a privilege he must have felt to be beyond price!

    The writer is an entrepreneur and economic analyst.
    For all infidels' reading pleasure.

    Elsewhere in Asia the US is exploiting India to stymie China’s rise as an uncontested Asian hegemon and a potential global political, military and economic behemoth.

    The US would like India to engage China in an essentially limited regional conflict (staying well below global thresholds) albeit intense enough to seriously stunt its ambitions at the regional and global levels effectively.

    A regional Indo-China war, with the US-led West in full backup support of India, would serve US objectives perfectly.
    To that end the US and its western allies including Israel are selling India the requisite “arsenal” and encouraging it to fight the “fight”!

    India is readily following US diktats and has challenged China in various domains.

    On the geopolitical plane it has raised unwarranted concerns on the OBOR/CPEC passing through Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan.

    Secondly, India is using terrorists and proxies from strategic spaces in Afghanistan and Iran to carry out terrorist activities to destabilise Balochistan and FATA thereby directly threatening the OBOR/CPEC.

    Thirdly, the Indians have confronted the Chinese on the Doklam plateau at the junction of the tri-boundary between China, Sikkim (India) and Bhutan.
    To read the full article, click on Outsourcing conflicts
    Last edited by Oracle; 02 Aug 17, at 05:34.

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    The asymmetric war

    The Afghan War of Liberation has twice changed its course in a short period of three decades.
    In 1987, it was the ‘stinger missiles’, which forced the Soviets to withdraw and now it is the “suicide bombers”, which have forced the Americans to change course in Afghanistan.

    The Stingers: In 1986, the Soviets inducted heliborne-commando Brigades, which caused heavy casualties on the Mujahideen.
    This was the time when General Crist, Centcom, visited my Headquarters at Peshawar, and was surprised to hear about the reverses suffered by the Mujahideen.
    Within a week, General Wikam, commander US Army, came to Peshawar to seek confirmation.
    He made ground checks and went back convinced of the need for a hand-held anti-air missile – the stingers, which were soon inducted, causing unacceptable casualties to Soviet helicopters.
    This happened to be the turning point of war, as the Soviets decided to withdraw.
    A correct decision at the right time.

    The Suicide Bombers: This is not something new, but has assumed new dimensions with Taliban commander’s son Abdul Rehman Khalid leading the suicide squad, riding a captured Humvy, loaded with explosives.
    This act alone has ignited the minds of thousands of young freedom fighters, readjusting themselves for attack on fortress garrisons held by American and allied troops.
    Just imagine, half a dozen vehicle mounted suicide bombers, attacking a garrison, to shatter the will of the defenders, followed by foot suicide bombers exploiting the break-through battle.
    While it is yet to happen, the policy makers in Washington now are seriously thinking of finding a way out of Afghanistan.

    In fact, the Americans and their allies were thoroughly defeated by the year 2010, but they didn’t show the grace to accept defeat like the Soviets to withdraw at the right time.
    However, they did send their emissary to me, Richard Armitage (the person who phoned General Musharraf, after 9/11, forcing him to accept the seven conditions for joining America’s war on Afghanistan) the head of the Committee of the Senate for Afghanistan, seeking dialogue with the Taliban.
    We discussed the details and succeeded getting the nod from Mullah Umar, who nominated a five member delegation, ready to meet the Americans.
    But meanwhile, something strange happened in Washington.
    Pentagon muffled Richard Armitage, who cut-off all contact with us after the treacherous kidnapping and killing of Col Imam and Khalid Khawaja.

    Since 2010, the Americans and their allies have been “trying to win victory out of their defeat”, but could make no headway against Mullah Umar’s firm demand: “Exit now and leave us alone to decide our future.
    ” This was to happen, in any case, as I had warned on September 23, 2001 in an open conference.
    I condemned General Musharraf for joining the American war on Afghanistan, saying “Taliban would regroup and re-organise, to fight back to win the war against United States and the Allies” – everyone laughed at me.
    Now they are laughing at themselves.

    Therefore, prominent American analysts and policymaking quarters now are suggesting ‘changing course in Afghanistan’, with some examples mentioned below.

    “Tragically after 16 years of committing substantial treasure in blood and money, with no end in sight to make Afghanistan safer and more secure, the alternative ranges from bad to worse.
    ” (Harlan Ullman.
    Senior Advisor, Supreme Allied Command Europe, 2004-2016.

    “We cannot be successful in Afghanistan, unless we have higher degree of cooperation from Pakistan.
    ” – Gen Dunford, JCOS, US.

    “It is time for the White House to acknowledge that most of the US troops are doing very little in Afghanistan at the considerable cost of over $23 billion a year.
    Doubling down on an unsuccessful war is not act of strength or persistence.
    It’s trying the same thing again and expecting a different result.

    “The need for changing the course has finally been realised by US policymaking quarters, who are expecting different results than the one these policies have been yielding all these fifteen years.
    It is a sign of insanity if you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

    “If the US seeks to occupy and liberalise terrorist’s safe heaven, it will run-out of troops long before the terrorists run out of land.

    “Pakistan’s need for Strategic Depth satisfy the Taliban demand for a foreign exit and grant Afghan (PAKISTAN) Pakhtuns, the dignity of living free from foreign influence.
    It is the least bad of a range of bad options.

    The US now recognises our concept of strategic depth.
    The struggle for freedom in Afghanistan having run a full circle, now has reached the choice point where Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan stood in 1988, together to form the strategic pivot of the Muslim world, providing depth of strategic security, in all its wider dimensions.
    On August 25, 1988, as the new Chief of Army Staff, addressing my senior offices, I had said “We are now witnessing the dawn of supremacy of Islam and democratic values.
    The three countries, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan are emerging free, strong and resilient and are moving towards a common destiny to form the bastion of power – the strategic pivot of the Muslim World.
    It’s a vision which must be converted into reality.

    That is the dream to be realised as our most important foreign policy objective and also “to satisfy our demand for foreign troops exit from Afghanistan and gain the dignity of living free of foreign machinations, influences and intrigues.
    Realisation of this deal would form the cornerstone of our national defence demands.

    The writer is a former COAS, Pakistan.

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    ‘K’ is for Kashmir

    Two, a formal proposal in the UN Security Council and General Assembly to adopt measures to prevent another Pakistan-India war, including: formalisation of the 2003 LoC ceasefire; expansion of the UNMOGIP and its deployment on both sides for comprehensive monitoring of the ceasefire; withdrawal of heavy artillery from LoC positions; exchange of solemn mutual assurances by Pakistan and India not to resort to force and not to interfere and intervene against each other, including through the sponsorship of terrorism.

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    From the days of Pakistani jihad incorporated

    We learned nothing from the fall of Dhaka, says Nawaz

    Nawaz is hitting the Pak army below the belt. He already is a political pariah, how long he will last is anybodys' guess.

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    ISI has links with terrorists: Mattis

    Where have the diplomatic niceties gone these days. ;-)

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Border violation: 11 mortar shells fired from Iran land in Panjgur

    What the...? Where is the solidarity amongst Ummah countries? And why is Iran doing that to the land of the pure?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Axis of evil
    By Ray in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21 Jan 08,, 16:18
  2. Bush backers left wondering where 'axis of evil' went
    By Kassad in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 18 Feb 07,, 07:49
  3. US wants India, Pak, Israel to be non-nuclear weapon states
    By oneman28 in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 30 May 05,, 18:43
  4. Israel : India top client
    By professional in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 22 Feb 05,, 06:58
  5. India, US, Israel Alignment. A new World Order?
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13 Sep 03,, 19:09

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts