What? A world that considers America a rouge nation that engages in deciet and war of aggression?
What will they say next, that we are a nation that engages in reppression and torture?
Whats that you say?
Oops...never mind.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 3, 2005 07:59 PMY crtnly r hypd n hypthtcls. ny wrthy mltry plnnr wld cnsdr ll scnrs, vn tht f ftr cnflct frftchd tdy.
[Editor: ignore=off]You certainly are hyped on hypotheticals. Any worthy military planner would consider all scenarios,… Posted by Bendito aYou are denigrating Bush's lack of planning for all scenarios in Iraq. That is disloyalty. You could be drummed out of the party for this. Posted by Mike at December 3, 2005 09:24 PM
India and the U.S. will never go to war with each other so long as we're both, roughly, democratic countries. It's absurd. This is just coming from India's old establishment views, which were Soviet-aligned. It doesn't reflect today's realities, where India is more closely aligned with the U.S. than with Russia. Really, there's much more important things to worry about right now than an Indian-U.S. war.
Posted by Brian Bell at December 3, 2005 10:33 PMEh, Hillary will be president in 0009, so maybe she'll outsource the US health care system to China/India to appease them.
Posted by muckdog at December 3, 2005 11:21 PMSteve,
You are way out on a limb and drawing conclusions that are beyond ridiculous. That India would be preparing to fight the US militarily is probably the absurdest thing you have heard. However, if their pilots are so good, it may make sense to outsource combat flying to India if we really want to get good results.
But realistically, the only military that could even remotely consider confronting the US is China. But that is such a remote probability since the 2 countries are so inextricably linked.
So chill it, take a nap, and spend your time addressing some of our real problems.
Chief Hailer
Posted by Chief Hailer at December 4, 2005 12:32 AMThe idea that two democratic countries never go to war with each other is a fine concept, but there are always pressures. India could well find itself in a hot war with the military dictatorship of Pakistan who might call on their ally America to support them, at least to supply them with weapons.
The Iranians are a democracy and have been for twenty years and more now after the overthrow of the American-supported regime of the Shah. In some ways they are more democratic than the US -- the voting age in Iran is sixteen, for example. This wouldn't stop the Republicans from launching a war against Iran if they had the capability, logistical and political.
Posted by Robert Sneddon at December 4, 2005 02:50 AMBrian:
A little history lesson. India was, and remains, a non-aligned nation, which considers that as a sovereign state it has the right to pursue whatever foreign policies serve its interests. During the cold war, non-alignment was anathema according to US policy diktats and any independent nation which was not pro-US was deemed pro-Soviet by default; irrespective of whether it was true or not - this was the line taken in the fifties with regards to Nasser and Mossadegh for example.
This did not prevent India from having perfectly workable relations with just about every country on the planet, bar Pakistan and China. I understand that India and China have now normalised; this just leaves the problem of Indo-Pak relations to be resolved.
India has normal relations with both the US and Russia these days; although I certainly cannot recall the last time that a Russian regime sought to impose sanctions on India.
As regards the potential for military conflict - it is only the US government that considers war to be a viable policy option to be used when you cannot win the argument; the Indians are simply recoginising that there are scenarios in which the US might seek to attack it - they're not contemplating doing the same.
Posted by dan at December 4, 2005 07:55 AMDan, a moral lesson and a history lesson, don't be so condescending, and that non-alignment was b.s. They were clearl Soviet aligned, no matter what they declared. Same with Nasser. To believe otherwise is to deny the facts and the real history.
Posted by Brian Bell at December 4, 2005 04:11 PMoh please tell us the real fact and real history oh brilliant one.
practisinbg socialist economics does not make one a full member of the warsaw pact.
Posted by polimorf at December 4, 2005 04:35 PMthat said, I think Steve os overreacting.
the author is simply noting that if India has to have an armed forces it should have one capable of defending India from ANY threat no matte how farfetched.
Sound like the sensible thing for a sovereign country to do.
Furthermore since India is on course the be a world power in the next generation its not unexpected that they should want a comparable military.
Posted by polimorf at December 4, 2005 04:39 PM