Welcome to Coridon 12
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.
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.
posted by Sam at
2:44 AM
14 Comments:
the coconut speaks! (hey man, shishir coined the term, i just put it to use). i really didn't even read your entry except for the first part. politics isn't my bag baby
By
Dan, at 12:43 PM
I don't blame ya. I was half asleep when I wrote it anyway, so it probably wouldn't make much sense anyway.
By
Sam, at 6:33 PM
it didnt...
and my reply to mrinals post aplies to yours too... :)
and.. umm..
feeding a poor kid isnt gonna save his sorry ass when a paki tank rolls over it. :P
Face facts man, weve been having our asses handed to us by pak over the last few times...
and we're the number one dipshits to have managed to send our armies as far as lahore's boundaries and then withdrawn them.
i dont think we should hand our land to them that frickin easily.
sorry guys... staunch realist and staunch patriot here.
~Om3n
By
Hellspawn~ The Ωmen, at 8:01 PM
Just because it wasn't coherent doesn't mean there was no point to it.
It's ironic because I know the standards you use to evaluate the US government, and you're failing to apply those very same standards to the subcontinent. It may seem a bit harsh, but that borders on hypocrisy.
You can spend all the money you want on defense and new weapons, in the name of deterrence. It isn't going to better any of India's social problems, and I don't need to tell you that it has a lot of them.
Yeah, India took the moral high ground and withdrew from Pakistan. Whether they should have done that or not has nothing to do with my point. And yes, I do believe it was a mistake as well.
You can be patriotic, but you don't have to be jingoistic. Cross that line, and you're as bad as a Republican.
By
Sam, at 9:33 PM
Im not being hypocritical..... im using the same scale as that on the US.... heres the plain and simple linear logic i'v used... its not some complicated crap..
a) USA claims that it has authority and responsibility when it comes to weapons-keeping.. I claim that India has the right to do the same (in fact even more so!) than the USA considering its high moral past and clean sheet regarding aggreesiveness
b) USA can bomb other countries to protect its own soil? SO CAN WE.
c) If the USA stops doing any of these things... we're more than willing to lay down all arms and go back to tending to our messed up country being run by village-goons.
so... i dont care if americans are protective of their soil and if they attack others to quell what might be dangerous to them... i criticize them claiming EXCLUSIVITY to that right... this "I can do it and YOU cant... why? because i say so".
Thats the point where i turn and give a back-handed whap across the face.
and yes... india will be being a "bully" too if we start bossing around our puny neighbours... but according to moral logic... we will be still clean. and pakistan has no bloody moral, ethical or logical right to screw around with anyone in the first place. so they can as well shut the hell up and die.
am i hypocritical? no.
am i angsty? yesss.
am i republican? hell no
am i going to use their shitty propaganda against them and defy their shitty policies with cold logic? HELL YESSS.
~Om3n
(Deine Welt)
By
Hellspawn~ The Ωmen, at 5:35 AM
Apples and oranges. Please take the time to read ALL of this before responding.
a) The US has no such authority. Neither does India. Both are sovereign nations and both are free to go about their own business, in a manner of speaking. Should the US have signed the CTBT? Yes. And they would have, prevailing political conditions notwithstanding. Was it hypocritical of them to push India to sign it? Obviously. Should India have signed it? In the interest of the international community, something which the US seems to have very little regard for, yes, they should have.
b) Are you advocating pre-emptive war on other sovereign nations in the name of self-preservation, while backing the claim up with unfounded accusations against the target country? Because that is exactly what the US did in the war on Iraq. And I know you're no fan of that partical event.
In the hypothetical case that you DID support the action, you say that you would support similar action by India for a similar cause. Using reverse logic, since you do not support the action, are you willing to say that India too should not follow the same course?
The 'if they will, so will we; if they won't, then neither will we' argument is circular and goes down a very slippery slope. You do not want to go there. And if you do, you're simultaneously giving up claim to any sort of moral high ground, because you advocate morally questionable action based on the other condition, and do not adopt a consistent position. Just thought I ought to point that out.
c) And this is where my problem with your standard of evaluation is. It's not logic. It's anything but logical. You're effectively saying this (and pardon the hyperbole)...
"The US is evil for what they do, but since they do it, it's cool for India to do it, even if it's evil. It will then still be morally acceptable - but only if India does it."
If the US undertakes a particular morally questionable action, it does NOT, I repeat, does NOT follow that said action becomes morally acceptable when India undertakes it, simply based upon the argument that 'they did it too'.
According to NO moral logic will India be 'clean'.
If India becomes an international bully, it will be its undoing. It will not be 'clean' whatsoever, not in the eyes of the international community, and not in the eyes of those like me who are not afraid to see things from a different perspective, ugly as they may be.
A mini-cold war with Pakistan is the very last thing India needs. Think of Pakistan what you will. I'm certainly no fan of theocracies. But that doesn't give me the right to violate their soverignty by claiming moral superiority. And it doesn't give them that right either. Again, fair standards.
The 'same scale' with 'linear logic' you're using is this - "if the US can do it, so can India". That's merely selective application. Does your 'same scale' include this - "if what the US did is wrong, then when India does it it will be wrong as well"? Because it doesn't seem like it, and which is why it lacks logical backing. You can't have it both ways.
So are you being hypocritical? You probably don't think so, but re-read what you wrote. It speaks for itself.
Are you angsty? Obviously, but for the wrong reasons.
Are you a republican? I know you aren't and never would be. Can you say the same with regard to Indian politics?
You just framed everything in terms of India vs USA. That isn't going to happen, and if it does, you know who wins out. Don't delude yourself. You call yourself a realist, then you also need to realize that India doesn't have anywhere near the international clout the US has. You need to stop pretending like it does.
Which brings me back to my point. India cannot afford gluttonous spending on defense. They already have military superiority over Pakistan, and those are all the bargaining chips they need at the negotiations table. Now is the time to set their differences aside, recognize and accept each other for what they are, and respect the fact that another country may not necessarily share your ideals. Unfortunately, this is something the US seems incapable of, but if anyone is, it's India. And Pakistan.
The childish bickering must end. The kids need to grow up.
By
Sam, at 7:38 AM
Btw, feel free to hit me up on MSN to talk about this. I love discussing/arguing these issues.
By
Sam, at 7:39 AM
Sam, how about discussing this on MSN. I'll prolly be online later on wednesday.
Let me know.
Mrinal.
By
Sabre Slayer, at 9:08 AM
Interesting posts raddy, but again, they lack logical backing. I'll address everything you have to say later since I have a class now. Mrinal, you can do this on MSN. Right click my name, and send a message to mobile device (if I'm away). It goes to my cellphone and if I'm away I'll get back to my PC. I have a feeling you're one of the few people I can have a level-headed debate about this with.
By
Sam, at 12:29 PM
Back. Sorry, had a calculus class to head to.
So yeah, like I was saying, I agree with most if not all raddy has to say, even if it could use some backing. The gist of it makes sense though. I'm glad I'm not the only non-neo-con around here.
By
Sam, at 2:24 PM
ok... im not saying "kill all pakis".... im not that dumb yet.
i meant it more as, to use a slightly more agressive facade to arm-twist the US to stop crapping around in this region.
i still stand by my point that the US can be a business partner but never an "Ally" because of the simple fact that they have too many interests in too many places. Not at all a reliable position.
I think India should stick to its morals, as it has for eternity... I dont want to scratch that clean record just yet.
But the US is shoving big toys into the pakis hands... and irrespective of if we can defeat them or not.. it will only make Pak more confident and jittery to use its new toy. And an overconfident or careless neighbour isnt a good thing in any case either.
Why cant we change our attitude about ONE thing... and that is to value each and every citizen and soldier's life?
That is ONE thing that America DOES RIGHT...
their problem is their crappy "revenge" policy they follow each loss with..
why do we Indians not care if a few more soldiers die in an airstrike by the newer planes?
im not saying we charge into war if one soldier falls...
im saying we should try to prevent that soldier from falling in the first place.
*and not by pre-emptive strikes but by getting some of the nosey bitches like the US out of the region and taking a STRONG stand against additional arms trading.
Pak has never had much of an upper hand over us... yet.. kargil happened...
Indians stick to their blind belief that if all the indians go to the border and spit, pak will be washed away.
unfortunately things dont work that way. we got screwed in kargil (thanks to which every fcuking american map shows india with half of our crown gone.. its apparently pakistan's now. its *NOT* considered "occupied territory"... the US maps dont recognise Palestine.. but they DO recognise Pakistani Kashmir!
and THAT is one thing that isnt right. That we allow everyone to sit back and accept what has been done. that we dont take a STAND. that we allow our OWN public to relax and smile and be carefree that we can crush pakistan if required.
We cant.
Not because we dont have the potential brute force.. but because we dont have the Mind behind it to control that force. We also have no international or even NATIONAL backing on the issue. why not? because we DONT TAKE A STAND.
because we're content with everything the way its going.
~Om3n
By
Hellspawn~ The Ωmen, at 10:22 PM
to summarise:
a) nobody has the right to do anything like whats happening with the US right now... not even the US itself.. but that fact fact holds SEVERE arm-twisting potential.
b) continuing from pt.a ... Applying political pressure is something India has to learn to do better.
c) Pre-emptive strikes wont help in the least... but being prepared to stop ANY attack DEAD in its tracks is something india has to be prepared to do.
d) we HAVE TO value Indian life more. We tolerate immense amounts of bullshit... terrorism, extremism, threats from pak, etc etc... but loss of a single person MUST be hyped up. the indian media SUCKS. If it hyped every death, every life lost, there would be a LOT more public support for the government (any damn govt). because people will unite if they see a credible threat from the outside. and theres no such thing as a "credible threat" unless the MEDIA wants it.
e) USING that same value for Indian life to apply MORE arm-twisting... and to gain more international support.
(eg: drag out old figures of how many arms the US has sold to Pak in x period of time and how many indian soldiers died.... use twisted statistics... they work. thats what theyre there for.
eg2: drag out indian casualty figures and prance them about on every damn international TV station.. petition in the UN... get support from every possible medium. International backing isnt worth much apparently [from the iraq war] but it could help india loads.)
f) USE that value for indian life to achieve point c.
With enough public support for better defence structures, work will get done faster... there will be less squabbling in parliament or wherever and less red tape...
all these points are interconnected... Im not a fan of war... but politiks is a game you HAVE to play smart. and you have to prepare for the worst.
~Om3n
By
Hellspawn~ The Ωmen, at 10:41 PM
Good posts, those made a lot more sense and were much more convincing than your previous ones. I'll address the first post first.
It makes sense, and maybe in a parallel universe it would even be true. But the fact is that the US attitude toward India isn't something that can be changed, and really isn't something that NEEDS to be changed. The US isn't hostile to India at this is point, and this is really all it needs to stay at.
Because like you say, a country like the US can never be considered an ally, even by its closest 'allies' like the UK. A Democratic administration would be critical of any kind of armament efforts India would undertake. Think that F-16 sale would have taken place had Kerry become president? A Republican administration on the other hand, really couldn't care less one way or another, as long as the country it's doing business with isn't a threat. The arming of Saddam Hussein and the training of Osama bin Laden come to mind.
A Republican adminstration puts the short term interests of the US over the short or long term interests of the rest of the world.
So India takes a stand against arms trading by it's enemies in general and between the US and Pakistan specifically. It's all good in theory, except for this.
1. It automatically assumes that Pakistan is the enemy. This is exactly what needs to be avoided to prevent the situation from infalming.
2. It'll ruin any kind of peace effort or process. It's a bitter pill to swallow but it has to be. India must recognize the sovereignty of Pakistan, and follow a policy of non-interference. (Hey, that reminds me of the Prime Directive)
3. How is India supposed to 'take a stand'? Diplomatic pressure is not going to work against the US, and will simply worsen the situation with Pakistan. Nobody wants that. So that leaves military pressure. A show of force. But this goes directly against what they're taking a stand for.
You view Pakistan as an overconfident and careless neighbour. That is the very mindset I'm talking about that needs to be avoided. It MAY be true, mind you, but Indians need to stop judging Pakistan and Pakistanis and accept that differences do and will always exist. Disputes need to be solved, not met with military force. Kashmir, the 'hot button issue' is not unresolvable, as long as both sides are willing to compromise. And if that isn't willing to happen, bring in an independent mediator. Or an arbitrator. Whatever the course of action taken, it needs to be resolved.
So what if Kargil happened? It did. Are you going to bitch and mope about it and start making death threats? Sure, that's helpful. Or you could elect people who could actually work a foreign policy that prevents such acts. One that doesn't involve radical armament and unilateral pre-emptive strikes, but at the same time sends a strong message about Indian sovereignty that at the same time doesn't intimidate potential allies. US foreign policy is so hawkish that even their closest allies are afraid to completely commit to them. This is exactly that shouldn't happen to India.
To address your second post.
a) You can twist someone's arm all you want, but when a time comes that you need his help, he'll turn on you. An Indo-Pakistani alliance could be extremely beneficial to both sides. Just look at what NAFTA has done for the US and Canada.
b) Refer to point A. Arm twisting is a possible, but not a feasible option. The ideal image that India wants to portray is of a benevolent nation that it willing to cooperate with others but will not stand for actions against it. And an image like that can only be built up over time. You cannot change a foreign policy by flipping a switch, and even if you could, you couldn't expect it to produce results.
c) I agree. I just don't agree that your way is the right way to go about it.
d) And this would lead to something even worse than what we have now. It's all good to support the troops, but it's not always right to support the action of the government ordering the troops. Ring any bells? It's so overhyped in the media here that the loss of a single American life is more important than the loss of hundreds of Iraqi lives. I view all life as equal. Random Pakistani X is the same as Random Indian Y who is also the same as Random Nigerian Z (unless Z is a spammer who tries to scam people for millions of dollars by email, but that's a debate for another time). Jingoism is not a good thing. Ever.
e) The US population strongly supports their troops, regardless of the action. (Note that they may or may not support the action itself) There is no correlation between said support and support for the action from the international community.
f) Rallying sympathy for lost lives is good, but the inevitable channeling of that emotion to hate for the aggressing country is not. Think about this - if Pakistan kills an Indian soldier at the border, there will be MORE anti-Pakistan sentiment than there will be pro-Indian-government sentiment. And this is true for all such cases, and as you've seen by recent American military excursions, it's NOT a good thing.
Bottom line: Saying Pakistan shouldn't arm itself isn't going to help. The ideal foreign policy would be akin to the one I've outlined above, because it would allow the diversion of defense spending, which simply eats money from the budget like nothing else, to welfare spending. India's social problems FAR outweigh their international problems. Fix society first. If you don't, all you'll be defending is a chaotic social mess of sorts.
By
Sam, at 12:40 AM
vandhe matharam?
By
Anonymous, at 9:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home