time to push for permanent membership in the security council again

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/india-tests-long-range-missile-reach-china-025428077.html

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/india-tests-long-range-missile-reach-china-025428077.html

Kris wrote:The fact is, China does not want either India or Japan to have a permanent seat.

>>>>Gotta hand it to these guys- a studied approach with a long term view of being the dominant asian superpower, preempting any possible potential advantage to any competitor.

charvaka wrote:The other issue is of the veto. I can't imagine any more veto-wielding members being created. The next set of permanent members will very likely not have the veto.

doofus_maximus wrote:Read the comments from the readers. These are the people who read a liberal website such as HuffPo. Imagine what readers of Faux News are saying. Depressing.

doofus_maximus wrote:Read the comments from the readers. These are the people who read a liberal website such as HuffPo. Imagine what readers of Faux News are saying. Depressing.

Hellsangel wrote:

doofus_maximus wrote:Read the comments from the readers. These are the people who read a liberal website such as HuffPo. Imagine what readers of Faux News are saying. Depressing.

Did you know that more progress for India-US relations was made under G.W. Bush than any other US President? And India was on the of the few foreign countries where he had a high rating.

Hellsangel wrote:
Did you know that more progress for India-US relations was made under G.W. Bush than any other US President? And India was on the of the few foreign countries where he had a high rating.

doofus_maximus wrote:that was due to economic reality during which India saw unprecedented growth and also due to 9/11 (if you are not with us, you are against us). Not because conservatives have a soft corner for India or for that matter any developing country.

doofus_maximus wrote:
>>>In the end, "America doesn't have friends, America has interests" as John Foster Dulles is supposed to have said. Probably true of most superpowers, past and present. The only problem is the shortsighted way the US has gone about it in the past, where expediency trumped long-term self interest. By contrast, look at the Chinese and the methodical way they are going about this superpower business now. India should look out for itself, just as the other countries do. It so happens its interests do align with the west now, what with China looming over the horizon (not to mention Pakistan, that basket case and eternal thorn in the side)

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>In the end, "America doesn't have friends, America has interests" as John Foster Dulles is supposed to have said. Probably true of most superpowers, past and present. The only problem is the shortsighted way the US has gone about it in the past, where expediency trumped long-term self interest. By contrast, look at the Chinese and the methodical way they are going about this superpower business now. India should look out for itself, just as the other countries do. It so happens its interests do align with the west now, what with China looming over the horizon (not to mention Pakistan, that basket case and eternal thorn in the side)

Hopefully, India will have friends in Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Did u notice how these encircle China and the Ruskies in the North. Looks like India is encircled by it distractors, according to PakiSatan, while it is China that is encircled.

Kris wrote:

doofus_maximus wrote:
>>>In the end, "America doesn't have friends, America has interests" as John Foster Dulles is supposed to have said. Probably true of most superpowers, past and present. The only problem is the shortsighted way the US has gone about it in the past, where expediency trumped long-term self interest. By contrast, look at the Chinese and the methodical way they are going about this superpower business now. India should look out for itself, just as the other countries do. It so happens its interests do align with the west now, what with China looming over the horizon (not to mention Pakistan, that basket case and eternal thorn in the side)

Hopefully, India will have friends in Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Did u notice how these encircle China and the Ruskies in the North. Looks like India is encircled by it distractors, according to PakiSatan, while it is China that is encircled.

charvaka wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>In the end, "America doesn't have friends, America has interests" as John Foster Dulles is supposed to have said. Probably true of most superpowers, past and present. The only problem is the shortsighted way the US has gone about it in the past, where expediency trumped long-term self interest. By contrast, look at the Chinese and the methodical way they are going about this superpower business now. India should look out for itself, just as the other countries do. It so happens its interests do align with the west now, what with China looming over the horizon (not to mention Pakistan, that basket case and eternal thorn in the side)

Hopefully, India will have friends in Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Did u notice how these encircle China and the Ruskies in the North. Looks like India is encircled by it distractors, according to PakiSatan, while it is China that is encircled.

Vietnam and Japan are the ones in that list that are getting closer to India. South Korea is ambivalent, given its preoccupation with North Korea. Also given its history sandwiched between two giants, it won't want to pick sides in a Japan-China tussle. As for Burma, the generals there are in the pockets of the Chinese, and the Chinese are building highways from China's Yunnan province to the Bay of Bengal. Thanks to its isolationism, gone are the days when upper-middle-class and elite Burmese people had lots of contacts with India, going to university in India, etc. The current crop of leaders are more comfortable dealing with China than with India. Thailand has no big stakes in this game -- it has no border with China. Laos doesn't count. Philippines and Malaysia are other potential allies because of the slow-brewing Spratlys dispute.

Kris wrote:I could be wrong, but I think Burma and S.Korea will be nudged by the US into the India camp. This is going to be about land grab (figuratively speaking).

charvaka wrote:

Kris wrote:I could be wrong, but I think Burma and S.Korea will be nudged by the US into the India camp. This is going to be about land grab (figuratively speaking).

They are certainly trying with Burma, and the signs are encouraging. But I am concerned that there will be another coup that displaces the current leader -- who is talking to the Americans and has made some tentative moves toward at least a show of democracy. The Chinese would certainly encourage such a coup. You are right on South Korea -- the US has tremendous leverage as the country depends on the US troops for its protection. Actually South Korea can't avoid some kind of mild cold war with China over the next few years... the north has to collapse in a decade or two if not sooner, and when that happens, clearly the south gets to take it over. China will see that as a strategic weakening of its position. If the north collapses, US troops could well be deployed on its borders. Not on some remote western border either, but a few hundred miles from Beijing. So even as the south tries to manage the coming collapse of the north, China will continue trying to prop up that regime. The victims in this big game are of course the North Korean people who die of famine.

charvaka wrote:
>>>Agree Burma is anybody's bet right now (incidentally, first hand reports from personal friends who were there recently suggest the country is not as much as a basket case as the media makes them out to be- but politically, it is precarious still). In my previous post, I should have said for many of these countries it is going to a case of 'geography is history' and hence, my land grab comment. Anyway, in all these theaters, China is also going to play the economic game, If they are doing it in the west indies and africa, seems only axiomatic for southeast asia.

Kris wrote:

charvaka wrote:
>>>Agree Burma is anybody's bet right now (incidentally, first hand reports from personal friends who were there recently suggest the country is not as much as a basket case as the media makes them out to be- but politically, it is precarious still). In my previous post, I should have said for many of these countries it is going to a case of 'geography is history' and hence, my land grab comment. Anyway, in all these theaters, China is also going to play the economic game, If they are doing it in the west indies and africa, seems only axiomatic for southeast asia.

In the end Burma will be neutral with a wink at India...why ? bcz of its need for commercial, economic, and geographical ties to the ASEAN. Burma has more to gain from ASEAN than China, which is unanimously detested by the ASEAN countries. Even Burma knows that China cannot be trusted and seeks China's friendship only bcz of a lack of relation with the rest of the world. As Burma gets closer to India and ASEAN (and by extension, US, Japan, and S.Korea), it has no need for China (what with the Chinkus drying up the Irrawady). If Brumese military junta insisted on relying on the Chinkus, they will end up as just another basketcase - like PakiSatan and N.Korea.

Kris wrote:

charvaka wrote:
>>>Agree Burma is anybody's bet right now (incidentally, first hand reports from personal friends who were there recently suggest the country is not as much as a basket case as the media makes them out to be- but politically, it is precarious still). In my previous post, I should have said for many of these countries it is going to a case of 'geography is history' and hence, my land grab comment. Anyway, in all these theaters, China is also going to play the economic game, If they are doing it in the west indies and africa, seems only axiomatic for southeast asia.

In the end Burma will be neutral with a wink at India...why ? bcz of its need for commercial, economic, and geographical ties to the ASEAN. Burma has more to gain from ASEAN than China, which is unanimously detested by the ASEAN countries. Even Burma knows that China cannot be trusted and seeks China's friendship only bcz of a lack of relation with the rest of the world. As Burma gets closer to India and ASEAN (and by extension, US, Japan, and S.Korea), it has no need for China (what with the Chinkus drying up the Irrawady). If Brumese military junta insisted on relying on the Chinkus, they will end up as just another basketcase - like PakiSatan and N.Korea.