Posted on 04/11/2005 4:45:11 AM PDT by Jeff Head
take a look at that last picture you put up. What flag are they flying? does that look anything like the indian tri-color ? let us make the distinction between indian military and indians serving in the british military. indians served in the british military on our side, the independent indian military (indian national army) was on the axis.
one more thing though i can't prove it with links, i know Nepalese who fought indians in Burma some of whom won the victoria cross. I dont think you can get the victoria cross for fighting against the allies.
Well, you are wrong on that acount. I was a consultant for an American and Canadian project and spent six weeks there in the late 90's evaluating engineering companies for that project in Bombay, Madras, Bangalore and New Delhi. I will not try and compare that with your 24 years.
...and I am not in some kind of competition with you on predictions. I hope China and India do not get closer. I know there is great mistrust there...but we are not helping matters by our continued realtionship with Pakistan. I believe we, the US, should be much more closely aligned with India.
As to could the things take a turn that sees India and China closer, even militarily? Like I said, the historical prcedence says stranger things have happened (ala Stalin/Hitler)...all I am saying is we need to be careful, vigilant and forment much better ties to India.
Best regards.
From my first review of the 'Dragon's Fury' series:
"Iran parlaying a nuclear capacity into reality, Middle Eastern states coming together into a unified intranational entity, erstwhile Atlantic alliances disintegrating before our very eyes, a China inveigling itself into hitherto unavailable spheres of influence around the world, even India besting the US militarily. Hey, wait a minute! That’s really happening. Right now. In real life. And that’s the thing. Head began his “Dragon’s Fury” series in 2001 but page after page, chapter after chapter, we see elements of the story emerging in the news outlets of today.".
"You mean, it won't happen, like when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?"
Yeah, but those were good invasions. :-)
You are correct on two scores: politics does make strange bedfellows. And that US and India should be closely aligned.
The latter is easier said than done - you only have to look at the posts on this thread to see the residual amount of bitterness from the cold war on both sides.
Regarding the former, because Pakistan helped US till 1991, the US should support a dictatorship teetering on the brink of Islamic fundamentalism with nukes, a country that helped create 9/11, and a country that most hates the US.
Ah, yes, politics does make strange bedfellows..............
cheers
If you find this useful, please ping to other FReepers:
According to Soviet KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviets and the Red Chinese strategists agreed to launch "glasnost" and "perestroika" and the "collapse of Communism" in order to bring about the following (main) objectives. As the reader can see, many of these objective are unfolding before our very eyes, while Japan (thankfully) has been very disappointing to the Soviet/Red Chinese strategists thus far (by siding with the US against the Red Chinese). India, of course, is falling like overripe fruit, right into their hands:
Author: Anatoliy Golitsyn
‘PERESTROIKA’, THE FINAL PHASE: ITS MAIN OBJECTIVES (Taken from declassified 1989 Memo to the CIA)
‘The new method sees ‘perestroika’, not as a surprising and spontaneous change, but as the logical result of thirty years of preparation and as the next and final phase of the strategy: it sees it in a broader context than Soviet ‘openness’ has revealed.’
‘It sees it, not only as a renewal of Soviet society, but as a global strategic design for ‘restructuring’ the entire capitalist world.’
‘The following strategic objectives of ‘perestroika’ may be distinguished:
For the USSR
(a) ‘Restructuring’ and revitalization of the Soviet socialist economy through the incorporation of some elements of the market economy.
(b) ‘Restructuring’ of the Stalinist regime into a form of ‘Communist democracy’ with an appearance of political pluralism [= ‘democratism’, or false democracy].
(c) ‘Reconsructing’ a repressive regime with a brutal face into an attractive socialist model with a human façade and seeming similarity to the Swedish social democratic system.’
For Eastern Europe
‘Economic and political ‘restructuring’ of the existing regimes into pseudo-social democratic models while preserving specific national historical features such as the strong Catholic Socialist tradition in Poland and the pre-war democratic tradition in Czechoslovakia.’
For Western Europe
(a) ‘Bringing about a new political alliance between the pseudo-social democratic regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe and the Euro-Communist parties and genuine social democratic parties in Western Europe.
(b) ‘Restructuring’ political and military blocs—NATO and the Warsaw Pact—and the creation of a singe ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals’ incorporating a reunited, neutral Germany.’
For the main US alliances
(a) ‘Splitting the United States, Western Europe and Japan.
(b) Dissolution of NATO and the US-Japan security pact, and the withdrawal of US troops from Western Europe and Japan.’
For Third World countries
‘The introduction and promotion of a new Soviet model with a mixed economy and a human face in Latin America, Africa and Asia through a joint campaign by the pseudo-social democratic regimes of the USSR and Eastern Europe and the genuine social democrats of Western Europe led by the Socialist International.’
For the United States
(a) ‘To neutralize the influence of the anti-Communist political right in the American political parties and to create favourable conditions for a victory of the radical left in the 1992 US presidential elections (In this context, Clinton’s stay with top Communists in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union during the latter part of the Vietnam war has profound and disturbing implications—TTS).
(b) To ‘restructure’ the American military, political, economic and social status quo to accommodate greater convergence between the Soviet and American systems and the eventual creation of a single World Government.’
The paramount global objective
‘The paramount global objective of the strategy of ‘perestroika’ is to weaken and neutralize anti-Communist ideology and the influence of anti-Communists in political life in the United States, Western Europe and elsewhere—presenting them as anachronistic survivors of the Cold War, reactionaries and obstacles to ‘restructuring’ and peace. Anyone who warns about Moscow’s true objectives is automatically branded a ‘Cold Warrior’, even by people who have doubts about Moscow’s motives.’
Either way, we need to align ourselves much more closely with India and display the national commitment and will to do so...meaning maintaining the effort across various administrations so they know we are not going to be fickle and turn on a dime.
Hey Jeff
Good stuff. Thank you for taking the time.
Was the collapse of dictatorial Central Asian and East European states to be replaced by pro-Western democratic governments also part of the strategy?
So how do the Russians intend to accompolish this while losing an estimated 1 million in population annually?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0418/p06s02-woeu.html
India was socialist, but it was democratic and "more or less" fair all along. I dont see why its so hard for people to comprehend the reasons behind why India chose to be socialistic for a while. It was a poor nation trying to retain democratic principles and still humoring the poorer chunks of its populace, with no source of foreign aid like Pak, Egypt and other countries obtain.
And well, as a newborn nation, it was going through an evolutionary phase of development and obviously tinkered with socialism, as it didnt want to go communistic like China or feudalistic like Pakistan.
Dont see anything wrong in trying to be individualistic, and not ending up as a carbon-copy model of the west ;)
Yes, India doesnt always support US, but its mostly because of the specific nature of some issues.. the nature of issues end up such that, India has to take care of its own interests, its got nothing to do with any notions of anti-Americanism that you seem to be foolishly imagining.
Infact, in that entire region, all the way from Turkey to South Korea, India and Israel are probably the only two places where the majority of people are not anti-American.
In brief, if you appreciate a slave, stick to feudal, Islamo-fascist Pak.. if you want a friend, try India but change your condescending attitude and show some respect for its individuality.
Very good analysis of India. It is a vast, mysterious land. To call it anti-American is naive at best.
Eventually, India & US will have to ally with each other, sooner or later to take on China and Pak.
Book I, Chapter 1. I think you even pegged it down to the same month and year! Welcome to the Coalition of Asian States.
Now this treaty isn't nearly as extensive as what I wrote of in the least in those books, because that was specifically about Siberia and Russia was in cahoots with them...but it is pretty amazing devellopment anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.