It's 4:44 am, and I'm bored. And since I have nothing better to do, I'm going to pick on my good friend Mrinal's
most recent blog post. This is going to be a political rant, so if you're not into it, or cannot dig with it as some would say, then don't bother reading.
It's interesting, because I don't follow Indian politics closely or even at all - nowhere near as closely as I follow American politics. Some say I'm an Indian citizen in name only, and earlier I had the 'honor' of being called a coconut by Dan. 'Coconut' of course, meaning 'white on the inside and brown on the outside', for those who didn't get it, but I digress. So maybe my credibility isn't the best when it comes to this. But like I said earlier, I have nothing better to do. I just got done with a difficult week involving three tests, so I've earned the right to rant.
I agree with Mrinal when he says that the Bush Administration's decision to supply Pakistan with the aircrafts in question in order to 'combat terrorism' is 'total codswallop'. It very much is. The 'War on Terrorism' is nothing more than used and abused rhetoric at this point to rally support from the right for Bush and Republicans in general. Maybe the administration actually does believe in the 'war', and they believe that with all new firepower Pakistan is somehow going to help them achieve their goals, whatever those may be. I can tell you this - the 'War on Terrorism' was the very last thing Pakistani officials were thinking about when the sale took place, apart from the fact that going along with the theme would guarantee them a supply of 24 planes. But that's besides the point anyway. Pakistan bought, for whatever reason, 24 F-16s from the US.
Run for the hills.
Never mind the fact that India too has been offered the F-16s. Right-wingers are up in arms about it. 'Why should Pakistan get more F-16s? Forget peace, they're denying our musicians visas!' Or something to that tune, from a random Indian message board I came across. As one Indian columnist writes, "What makes it all laughable is that the pretext is to aid Pakistan’s counterinsurgency efforts. These weapons will be used to intimidate or attack India."
I have one thing to say to you people. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
This mindset is why relations between India and Pakistan are the way they are (and I'm not talking about the 'peace process' here). It's all about the balance of power. The nuclear stalemate. One side fires a shot, everyone loses. It isn't about who's got a military advantage anymore. That's irrelevant. Go to war, and everyone loses. It may seem cliched, but it's the truth.
Get more guns. Get all the guns you need. Get planes, get tanks, get submarines. Spend all that taxpayer money on that defense budget. The Pakistan is coming.
Burst the bubble. Look beyond 'India-Pakistan'. To India, it may seem like a 'whole new relationship with the US'. To the Bush adminsitration, it's just one of many things on the agenda. We're talking about India becoming a super-power now? Step back and look around. Look at the slums, the roads, the people, the everything. The state of the nation. And it's not good people. People living and dying in the streets. India's going nowhere the way it is.
Don't buy the gun. Give a hungry kid the money instead.
Bleeding-heart liberal rhetoric? Maybe. It still stands.
Yeah, that wasn't entirely coherent. It wasn't supposed to be. It's not a rational argument. I make those all the time, and they're just not as much fun. Somewhere in the middle there I started going off on tangents to tangents, but whatever. I said what I wanted to. This is one of those "it's so fucking stupid and people just don't see it" issues.
Now Playing: Ferry Corsten - Sublime
Side Note - I noticed the first reply to the linked post mentions the CTBT. I ought to mention that the CTBT would in fact have been ratified by the Senate in 1999, if Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) hadn't given into political pressure by Republicans and flip-flopped on the vote, flipping a number of Republican votes in the process, and killing any chance the treaty had of being ratified. It had strong Democratic support, and Clinton would have signed it. I just thought I should mention this, since it IS Democrats who tried to push India to sign the CTBT. Which, in my honest opinion, they should have done.