There is only a political settlement at the end of the Day, the Afghans live there we don’t, they keep fighting we eventually go away, we have to get them to want to stop fighting

If the terror never ends, all countries affected by terrorism should participate in the Afghan campaign. Even if it calls for a 100 year international troop presence, so be it. Leaving things half way is not the way, and you cannot bring the tribal Afghans to the negotiating table like the civilized IRA.

I think we can all agree with respect to recent Russian price hike, that LCA and other indigenous products is the way to go. We should also diversify and start work on a next generation tank, artillery guns etc.

Industrial participation of private companies like the TATA group are vital in the long term. 🙂

Are you or have you been a serving soldier sailor or airman? Do you have a son/daughter (husband?) wife serving in theatre and being shot at? If you lost them would you think it was worth the price that you/they have paid?

There are 138 British families counting the cost so far and I dread to think how many families in the US, France, Canada……………….. They are counting the cost and desperately trying convince themselves it was worth their loss and more are to come…………………………

You just don’t sound like the kind of person who really has a vested interest in any of this. Just jingoistic pride.

Like i said before i was not talking about the human toll on either side or humanitarian crisis. Right now in Afghanistan, the Americans are prepared to win the war at any cost, while the British are more towards a political settlement. That is all I am saying here.

I’m SURE that it doesn’t deserve one, yet nor should it be allowed to stand unchallenged. Allied servicemen died making their contribution to the Cold War, and this claim diminishes their sacrifice and disrespects their memory.

A more silly comment it’s hard to imagine. It’s a breathtakingly offensive example of the worst kind of misplaced, insular and arrogant American superiority complex.

I am not an American for one. I don’t want to be one either. But to say that Western Europe would have survived without American help during the Cold War is :confused:

pragmatism upto a point is fine. not to a point where you alienate countries that have traditionally stood up for you.

Russia is doing the same to India now with its hard-nosed stance on price escalations, etc. and many attribute it to the kind of pragmatism and confidence that Russia now has under Putin.

yet, where at one time there was great leniency for Russian policies that could even hurt India, because of their steadfast friendship for decades, today, its giving way to a feeling of “just business” within Indian circles too as even our Navy Chief spelt out. this will hurt Russia in the long run as they’ll lose a very lucrative market and a strong ally and they’re currently being short sighted by letting it happen.

Iran of today is not the one of yesterday. Its headed by a hard headed holocaust denier, who in my opinion shouldn’t even be making state visits to our country.

Yes Russians are pragmatic now, and we should be too rather than mourning the end of the Soviet/Yetsin Era. We have other countries offering us weapons French Israelis and Americans. So it should not always be Russian from now on. Actually they are also gaining markets, countries like Indonesia and Malaysia for eg. And to be fair we use far too much Russian stuff to alienate them totally, we need lifetime support for many of these and getting too tough with Russians is an option that does not exist.

I understand Geo-politics. I just don’t like a poster who acts holier-than-thou and keeps bringing up the “if Western nations can buy US, why can’t India” arguments without even having a clue as to what has tinted India and Indians view of US policies over decades.

Scooter pretends (or is delusional) as if the US gives a damn about nukes proliferating in a neighbourhood for any other reason than geo-politics. Its not concern for fellow human beings that drives them to try and prevent Iran or North Korea from getting nukes- its geopolitics, plain and simple.

As for India and Iran, Govts. shape their policies too and I’m not saying that they don’t have double standards- they do. But that doesn’t change any argument against why the US at least till now, has not been a reliable supplier as far as India is concerned.

this short-sighted Congress govt. was coerced into voting against Iran. You can do a search on Wikipedia for “India Iran relations” and you’ll find this

It was incredibly short sighted of the Congress Govt. when they voted against Iran, under US pressure. Iran has voted for India on several occasions in the past when Pakistan would try to get resolutions passed against India in the OIC. the least India could’ve done was to abstain from voting.

Its time we Indians are Pragmatic. There is no point to keeping with the cold war stance when its been over for a decade. There is no room for ‘India was our friend’ sentiments in foriegn relations either. We have to serve our best interests and Iran is a state on its last legs, whichever way you look at it. It is going to have an eventual conflict with Israel, U.S and a possible regime change is on the cards.

Also the the much talked about Iran Pakistan India Pipe Line issue. How can you trust to have a Pipe Line running through the territory of your enemy. And also in case of Iran being in War, its enemies will target its infrastructure including the proposed pipeline. Why invest in muddy waters.

Ankush you belong to a school of thinking where everyone should act fair and friendly, the world is not like this and I am not saying we must blindly trust the Americans either. India must do what is best for India at the given moment, and in the future, in a much changed world if it means allying with Chinese then even that. Pragmatism is the KEY.

You realize that if the German politicians were to actually listen to people, there would be exactly zero German soldiers in Afghanistan? (depending on survey 60% to 85% against deploying on foreign soil – and the same goes for a lot of European countries)

I think all these countries owe the US for saving their asses during the Cold War Period.

well, it was America that perfected the nuke weapon first anyway, and they were the first to use it on a civilian population..what makes you think that others won’t count that as being “rogue” ?

the issue on hand is this- you cannot have flawed, discriminatory regimes like the NPT, when there are 5 nations in the world that have nukes and don’t have No-First-Use policies. Either all should renounce nukes or else the entire premise of nukes being dangerous in other’s hands sounds like double standards..

its like this group of bullies who think that they can carry firearms, but every other person should be prevented from acquiring or developing their own. this group of bullies won’t even promise not to ever use their firearms only if attacked, so it means hypothetically that if you wouldn’t even need to get into a fight with them, for them to shoot you pre-emptively..wonderfully secure you’d feel I’m sure.

I’m surprised that the US has a Constitution that guarantees the right of every individual to carry a fire-arm as a form of equality. Apparently, the same cannot be extended to countries. Safest is to ban everyone from carrying arms.

India offered to give up its nukes, as long as all others did too. no-one agreed, and India never did sign the NPT, so it never broke any laws, any agreements when it developed its nukes. Iran is an NPT signatory, so either it should pull out of that or else what its doing is illegal.

as for the great concern about the doom of all, what did America do to prevent Pakistan from acquiring its “Islamic bomb” ? If tomorrow, a Talibanesque regime comes to power, or some Taliban sympathising general takes over in a coup, Islamic terrorists could get their hands on a dirty bomb or a nuke itself. And yet, what did US do to prevent Pakistan from becoming a nuke power ? Pressler Amendments ? How does that compare to what economic and military sanctions its applied on N Korea or Iran ? What did it do to punish China for propagating nuke technology ? Or to punish Pakistan for proliferating nuke technology to N.Korea and Iran ?

the US can’t apply morality selectively and possibly believe that others are naive enough to think that the US is truly concerned with altruism.

Its like this Ankush. When you are the member of an exclusive group you will have grudges and doubts about countries who are trying to get into the group. And you may try to prevent them,

Its natural and that’s what Americans did.

Now long after the nuke deal talks and India being friendly with the US. Did we not vote against Iran in UN security Council. DId our PM not say that We do not want Iran to have Nukes. That we are against the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

By your logic that can also be double standardish, But that’s just pragmatic foriegn policy, you do not always play fair and with the ideals of equality. We tried that a lot during the NAM days, it has got us no where, and tis time to try a different footing.

I wonder how all these other countries will fare, compared to the U.S.A of now, if they were in a similar status as the only super power. Most of them will do much worse I think. :rolleyes: