Why does America back Pakistan and not India?

[OneOfTheseDays]

Pakistan = puppet gov't controlled by fundamentalist Islamic military

India = democracy

Anyone?

 

[winnar111]

Err, they don't. George W. Bush has formed a great relationship with India.

 

[Strk]

Because one is more of an ally, whereas the other is a fragile government that doesn't really control most of the country and has been under control of fundamentalists (al-Haq) before.

 

[imported_K3N]

Musharaf was a pro US puppet. India allied themselves with the soviet union after the bangladeshi war in 1971 and so on. Today india gets their military arms from russia.

Things are starting to change with obama talkin about bombing pakistan for the sake of "aiding terrorists", since pakistan is tired of being their bitch.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't know about our government but I would side with India same as I side with Israel. The enemy of our enemy is our friend.

If our government has taken a different stance, then we need to look at just how poorly it represents the American people.

 

[ProfJohn]

ummm Bush is more popular in India than any other country in the world, including the US. We must be doing something right.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are asking "do you carry your lunch or walk to school?"

We "back" India very much indeed. We signed a civilian nuclear agreement with them recently. Have we done this with Pakistan? No, not at all. India doesn't need us, and we don't "need" them in the sense that we "need" a stable Pakistan. Contrary to what you say, Pakistan has a secular government in place, which has a democratically elected President. The old guy is out. What we don't want is for Pakistan to become another Iran. That is why we put up with BS, and why we haven't launched attacks within Pakistan in earnest. The long term goals outweigh the desireable hoped for short term results.

For all their troubles, India isn't harboring terrorists, is no threat to the region as a whole and hasn't shown animosity towards anyone other than Pakistan, and that is more of a family feud than anything else.

There isn't "backing" which is needed.

 

[StageLeft]

That's like asking why the US backs Pakistan and not Canada. Well, not quite, but the US backs India substantially, including nuclear tech quite recently. I think it's fabulous because India as a country seems a hell of a lot more staple and all growns up than Pakistan. It's got problems, but it's growing quickly and a good alliance with a 1B population country is nice to have.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

If the US was really backing India then why have they not stepped up pressure on Pakistan to remove the terrorist elements from their country?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If the US was really backing India then why have they not stepped up pressure on Pakistan to remove the terrorist elements from their country?

If you are asking why India hasn't stepped up pressure on Pakistan as far as terrorism, there is a simple reason. Nobody cares about radical Islam until it hits home. You will now see India start to share intelligence with us in a way they never have.

Before 9/11 happened, WTC I, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole didnt really alarm the American people. It was always someone else's problem.

And now that there hasnt been an attack on US soil since 2001, you can already see the hippies proclaiming that radical Islam is just a "boogey man".

If something is not directly affecting you, it is hard to care. Now India cares.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If the US was really backing India then why have they not stepped up pressure on Pakistan to remove the terrorist elements from their country?

If you are asking why India hasn't stepped up pressure on Pakistan as far as terrorism, there is a simple reason. Nobody cares about radical Islam until it hits home. You will now see India start to share intelligence with us in a way they never have.

Before 9/11 happened, WTC I, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole didnt really alarm the American people. It was always someone else's problem.

And now that there hasnt been an attack on US soil since 2001, you can already see the hippies proclaiming that radical Islam is just a "boogey man".

If something is not directly affecting you, it is hard to care. Now India cares.

Eh? That makes no sense. India has been having problems for many decades. It's just you who've notice it perhaps. You might just have well said that Israel has noticed it has a problem too.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If the US was really backing India then why have they not stepped up pressure on Pakistan to remove the terrorist elements from their country?

If you are asking why India hasn't stepped up pressure on Pakistan as far as terrorism, there is a simple reason. Nobody cares about radical Islam until it hits home. You will now see India start to share intelligence with us in a way they never have.

Before 9/11 happened, WTC I, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole didnt really alarm the American people. It was always someone else's problem.

And now that there hasnt been an attack on US soil since 2001, you can already see the hippies proclaiming that radical Islam is just a "boogey man".

If something is not directly affecting you, it is hard to care. Now India cares.

Eh? That makes no sense. India has been having problems for many decades. It's just you who've notice it perhaps. You might just have well said that Israel has noticed it has a problem too.

Right. Just like we had problems for many decades before one incident woke us up.

 

[Infohawk]

The answer is the Cold War. Despite their democracy, the Indians used central planning and the like. During the Cold War, the US did not care about democracies if public policy was too left-leaning. As with China, India eventually liberalized their economy.

As I've said in other threads recently, we need to make India a big ally. English is one of their big languages, they are democratic and they look like they will be a major power in the future.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If the US was really backing India then why have they not stepped up pressure on Pakistan to remove the terrorist elements from their country?

If you are asking why India hasn't stepped up pressure on Pakistan as far as terrorism, there is a simple reason. Nobody cares about radical Islam until it hits home. You will now see India start to share intelligence with us in a way they never have.

Before 9/11 happened, WTC I, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole didnt really alarm the American people. It was always someone else's problem.

And now that there hasnt been an attack on US soil since 2001, you can already see the hippies proclaiming that radical Islam is just a "boogey man".

If something is not directly affecting you, it is hard to care. Now India cares.

Eh? That makes no sense. India has been having problems for many decades. It's just you who've notice it perhaps. You might just have well said that Israel has noticed it has a problem too.

Right. Just like we had problems for many decades before one incident woke us up.

I think you need to read up on Pakistan/India history. The US has had a cakewalk by comparison. What you fail to offer these people whom you seem to believe have had their heads in the sand a viable solution. No flag waving or mass exterminations need apply, because they won't work either.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If the US was really backing India then why have they not stepped up pressure on Pakistan to remove the terrorist elements from their country?

If you are asking why India hasn't stepped up pressure on Pakistan as far as terrorism, there is a simple reason. Nobody cares about radical Islam until it hits home. You will now see India start to share intelligence with us in a way they never have.

Before 9/11 happened, WTC I, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole didnt really alarm the American people. It was always someone else's problem.

And now that there hasnt been an attack on US soil since 2001, you can already see the hippies proclaiming that radical Islam is just a "boogey man".

If something is not directly affecting you, it is hard to care. Now India cares.

Eh? That makes no sense. India has been having problems for many decades. It's just you who've notice it perhaps. You might just have well said that Israel has noticed it has a problem too.

Right. Just like we had problems for many decades before one incident woke us up.

That's completely absurd. India has been working very hard fighting radical Islamist elements for decades. This is absolutely nothing new to them, and their anti-terrorism efforts were already quite large. They didn't need any 'waking up'. Did you forget about the armed assault on the Indian parliament itself? Imagine what we would do here if the Capitol Building was attacked.

We back India just fine, and the foreign policies of all 3 countries in respect to fighting terror largely involve controlling radical elements in Pakistan without causing some sort of disintegration of the Pakistani state.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm Bush is more popular in India than any other country in the world, including the US. We must be doing something right.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, non Prof John outdoes himself. Had PJ said the USA is popular in India,
it might be one thing, but when he notes GWB instead, PJ is talking about the very GWB that most of the USA will be happy to see get flushed down the toilet in 49 short days.

And thereafter we might finally have a rational foreign policy in regard to that region. First, as others have pointed out, India has by in large been self declared neutral during the cold war, but they have historic ties with Russia in terms of arms deals. Hardly making them trusted allies. Pakistan, at least under Musharraf was our open ally, but rouge elements inside of the Pakistani ISI have openly sided with the Taliban. Meanwhile, Nato and the USA are in a big quagmire in Afghanistan, and with only 72,000 troops, that occupation is too troops starved to do much of anything. Therefore, the last thing the USA and Nato need as basically status quo nations, is to be anywhere close if historic Pakistani India hostilities break out. Now complicated by the fact that both countries have nuclear arms that terrorists all over the planet would just love to get control of.

While we in the USA tend to think terrorism is something new, attacks of this sort by both sides have been the norm in this general region of the world for at least a thousands years. As the US presence in Afghanistan simply increases the tensions as Hindus and Muslims have been at each others throats over all kinds of issues. While the governments of both India and Pakistan do not want open warfare, the tensions can be easily driven driven by determined small groups of terrorists or the random acts of mobs. And while Muslim terrorists attacks grab many recent headlines, attacks by Hindu mobs probably claim more innocent lives.

And not to denigrate Pakistan in any way, a nation of 165 million with more than its share of economic and political problems, Pakistan some what deserve a right to paranoia, because India's population totally dwarfs that of Pakistan. At it also explains why Pakistan needs a stable and friendly Afghanistan to its West, because it really has no buffer zone against a hostile India to its East and a good part of its North. And while things like the Khyber pass stood as a natural defense barrier in the past, modern technology has rendered that barrier moot.

So I submit, the reaction of the US should be strict neutrality, followed by an effort by the world's diplomatic community to help solve the Kashmir dispute that also drives many of the tensions in the region.

But no wonder GWB is so popular in India, his perhaps well meaning bumbling has
done much damage to Pakistan without hurting India. But given the past 30 years of US efforts in the region, neither India or Pakistan has any reason to trust the USA to honor commitments.

But in general, over the longer sweep of history, the region is still adjusting to the break up of the colonial era while even more long terms historical forces still operate. At the same time, modern technology is finally finding its way to the masses at the same time a modern China is will become an increasingly powerful force.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm Bush is more popular in India than any other country in the world, including the US. We must be doing something right.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, non Prof John outdoes himself. Had PJ said the USA is popular in India,
it might be one thing, but when he notes GWB instead, PJ is talking about the very GWB that most of the USA will be happy to see get flushed down the toilet in 49 short days.

And thereafter we might finally have a rational foreign policy in regard to that region. First, as others have pointed out, India has by in large been self declared neutral during the cold war, but they have historic ties with Russia in terms of arms deals. Hardly making them trusted allies. Pakistan, at least under Musharraf was our open ally, but rouge elements inside of the Pakistani ISI have openly sided with the Taliban. Meanwhile, Nato and the USA are in a big quagmire in Afghanistan, and with only 72,000 troops, that occupation is too troops starved to do much of anything. Therefore, the last thing the USA and Nato need as basically status quo nations, is to be anywhere close if historic Pakistani India hostilities break out. Now complicated by the fact that both countries have nuclear arms that terrorists all over the planet would just love to get control of.

While we in the USA tend to think terrorism is something new, attacks of this sort by both sides have been the norm in this general region of the world for at least a thousands years. As the US presence in Afghanistan simply increases the tensions as Hindus and Muslims have been at each others throats over all kinds of issues. While the governments of both India and Pakistan do not want open warfare, the tensions can be easily driven driven by determined small groups of terrorists or the random acts of mobs. And while Muslim terrorists attacks grab many recent headlines, attacks by Hindu mobs probably claim more innocent lives.

And not to denigrate Pakistan in any way, a nation of 165 million with more than its share of economic and political problems, Pakistan some what deserve a right to paranoia, because India's population totally dwarfs that of Pakistan. At it also explains why Pakistan needs a stable and friendly Afghanistan to its West, because it really has no buffer zone against a hostile India to its East and a good part of its North. And while things like the Khyber pass stood as a natural defense barrier in the past, modern technology has rendered that barrier moot.

So I submit, the reaction of the US should be strict neutrality, followed by an effort by the world's diplomatic community to help solve the Kashmir dispute that also drives many of the tensions in the region.

But no wonder GWB is so popular in India, his perhaps well meaning bumbling has
done much damage to Pakistan without hurting India. But given the past 30 years of US efforts in the region, neither India or Pakistan has any reason to trust the USA to honor commitments.

But in general, over the longer sweep of history, the region is still adjusting to the break up of the colonial era while even more long terms historical forces still operate. At the same time, modern technology is finally finding its way to the masses at the same time a modern China is will become an increasingly powerful force.

Actually in this one case PJ may be right. I remember reading about a survey done on GWB's popularity around the world, and GWB rating was indeed a higher percentage in India - but it must be borne in mind that that was around the time of the Nuclear deal with India which was getting the agreement despite not signing the NPT. And GWB was viewed as pushing for the deal in India which made him popular there.

I would like to see a poll done earlier and it would not surprise me to see his ratings in the toilet as it is here.

 

[jonks]

not back india? not back india? we gave them ALL our tech support jobs for chrissake! when's the last time you spoke to a support technician in islamabad? thought so.

 

[Atheus]

Most Indians see the former colonial power as a friend but are also very wary of anything that could be seen as interference with their affairs. The USA is tarred with the same brush. I feel that any offer to sort out India's problems for it would be seen with great suspicion and not appreciated in the slightest.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You are asking "do you carry your lunch or walk to school?"

We "back" India very much indeed. We signed a civilian nuclear agreement with them recently. Have we done this with Pakistan? No, not at all. India doesn't need us, and we don't "need" them in the sense that we "need" a stable Pakistan. Contrary to what you say, Pakistan has a secular government in place, which has a democratically elected President. The old guy is out. What we don't want is for Pakistan to become another Iran. That is why we put up with BS, and why we haven't launched attacks within Pakistan in earnest. The long term goals outweigh the desireable hoped for short term results.

For all their troubles, India isn't harboring terrorists, is no threat to the region as a whole and hasn't shown animosity towards anyone other than Pakistan, and that is more of a family feud than anything else.

There isn't "backing" which is needed.

this.

 

[crisscross]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You are asking "do you carry your lunch or walk to school?"

We "back" India very much indeed. We signed a civilian nuclear agreement with them recently. Have we done this with Pakistan? No, not at all. India doesn't need us, and we don't "need" them in the sense that we "need" a stable Pakistan. Contrary to what you say, Pakistan has a secular government in place, which has a democratically elected President. The old guy is out. What we don't want is for Pakistan to become another Iran. That is why we put up with BS, and why we haven't launched attacks within Pakistan in earnest. The long term goals outweigh the desireable hoped for short term results.

For all their troubles, India isn't harboring terrorists, is no threat to the region as a whole and hasn't shown animosity towards anyone other than Pakistan, and that is more of a family feud than anything else.

There isn't "backing" which is needed.

this.

Actually India hasn't really shown animosity towards Pakistan either. Historically, we have fought three wars with them and all three were started by them. We did end them though

 

[Nemesis 1]

There are a lot of differant agendas by differant groups going on in this area of the World. But the true under lying CAUSE is the Caspien SEA OIL !/3 of the worlds oil reserves. AS of right now only the eastern powers have deals. Putin is cutting the west off.

Your not going to see the biggest story on earth covered as it should be . But let someone murder a porn star. Thats real news LOL.

 

[piasabird]

How many computer programmers have we hired from Pakistan, compared to India????

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You are asking "do you carry your lunch or walk to school?"

We "back" India very much indeed. We signed a civilian nuclear agreement with them recently. Have we done this with Pakistan? No, not at all. India doesn't need us, and we don't "need" them in the sense that we "need" a stable Pakistan. Contrary to what you say, Pakistan has a secular government in place, which has a democratically elected President. The old guy is out. What we don't want is for Pakistan to become another Iran. That is why we put up with BS, and why we haven't launched attacks within Pakistan in earnest. The long term goals outweigh the desireable hoped for short term results.

For all their troubles, India isn't harboring terrorists, is no threat to the region as a whole and hasn't shown animosity towards anyone other than Pakistan, and that is more of a family feud than anything else.

There isn't "backing" which is needed.

this.

Indeed.

I don't think it's that we don't back India (which we obviously do), it's that they don't show up in the news in relation to the US because our relationship is pretty good. Our "backing" of Pakistan, on the other hand, is full of problems and issues that need to be worked out...so it gets more press.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Pakistan = puppet gov't controlled by fundamentalist Islamic military

India = democracy

Anyone?

Puppet Governments(dictators, etc. too) that suck up to US interests are preferred over anyone else. No matter how corrupt and back-stabbing they are.