American Jewish Commitee dismayed by India-Iran ties.

[huzihaidao12]

Well a country threat other country of nuclear operation only when she thinks the other country is her enemy or the other country had done something which must be conflicting to her own interest.

I can tell you, no, we just have the bomb, but almost no projection capabilities, China has no plans to take the initiative to attack the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was a superpower, we have just been independent for 20 years.

 

[t_for_talli]

india can not be trusted they are not know for their loyalty, recent examples of backstabbing her allies include

1) china in 1962 (hosting terrorist tibetans , forward policy with chini hindi bhai bhai)
2) America and her allies ( ignor sanction continue buying oil from iran)
3) russia (did not veto the un resolution)
4) syria is a strong supporter of india and yet when she in troubles india voted against her in the un resolution
5)Britian gave india billion of aid , when britian offered to sell the best fighter planes to india, india rejected the offer and went for those useless fighters from france.

all in all basicly no one trust india any more

Still all those countries have good relationship with India
This is called Rational decision making and excellent diplomacy
We dont have Master slave relationship with out partners(like China and Pak)

 

[Splurgenxs]

lol and there goes the thread....the exact moment a Chines opens his shitty trap.
Clear case of *** burning syndrome.
Get a life.

 

[Tshering22]

Because there is a land reform and democratic reform, the Millennium slaves get land ,property and freedom from the slave owners. Those slaveholders aristocrats have a close relationship and the monks, they took advantage of religion. Religion a good role in some aspects, but if evil, it is also a good tool for the control of the personal and ideological.

And who were you to decide they are oppressed? The turnout of which you see even today. Now don't show me those CCP photos. Liberation as your party terms, was just a means for further land grabbing.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

I can tell you, no, we just have the bomb, but almost no projection capabilities, China has no plans to take the initiative to attack the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was a superpower, we have just been independent for 20 years.

And yet you thought you could grab Vladivostok right under their nose using their weapons eh? .

 

[Developereo]

Soviets helped Mao Zedong for establishing communist regime in China.

Well, China must have done something wrong to Soviets otherwise our experience with Soviets was always good and they helped us in our all worst days like 1971 war, 1961 Goa liberation, setting up industries in India.

SU perceived the US and China as worthy adversaries; India was never in that league, as far as the SU was concerned, and not worth wasting time on. For the SU, India's only role was to serve as a thorn in the side of China, nothing more.

 

[Birbal]

SU perceived the US and China as worthy adversaries; India was never in that league, as far as the SU was concerned, and not worth wasting time on. For the SU, India's only role was to serve as a thorn in the side of China, nothing more.

Obviously India wasn't an adversary of the Soviet Union.

 

[Developereo]

Obviously India wasn't an adversary of the Soviet Union.

Paranoia is the name of the game; anybody with the requisite strength is a potential adversary. Even the US and Europe, although allies, have internal rivalries which Russia is eager to exploit.

The point was that China was seen as having the strength to be a potential rival to the SU, whereas India was not perceived to have such capability. Hence, it was "safe" to support India. This is the same reason the West currently favors India over China. It's got zip to do with democracy, etc.

 

[bandit]

SU perceived the US and China as worthy adversaries; India was never in that league, as far as the SU was concerned, and not worth wasting time on. For the SU, India's only role was to serve as a thorn in the side of China, nothing more.

It was India who increased. Ties with SU after Nixon fucked up in his diplomacy with India. India was one of the most neutral countries even though Pakistan had jumped headlong into it's relation ship with US right back in the 50's receiving all the US toys and aid.

The breaking point was 71 when it openly supported Pakistani atrocities and threatened India. Then Indira tamped up ties with SU, great diplomacy tbh.

And lol at Counterweight to China, china was midget for the bear.

 

[Developereo]

It was India who increased. Ties with SU after Nixon fucked up in his diplomacy with India. India was one of the most neutral countries even though Pakistan had jumped headlong into it's relation ship with US right back in the 50's receiving all the US toys and aid.

The breaking point was 71 when it openly supported Pakistani atrocities and threatened India. Then Indira tamped up ties with SU, great diplomacy tbh.

And lol at Counterweight to China, china was midget for the bear.

This discussion is not about Pakistan. As much as Indians believe in the NAM charade, the reality is that the SU supported India as a direct counter to US support of Pakistan and, to a lesser extent, China. Yes, China was a 'midget' compared to the SU but, even in the 60s, both the US and SU viewed China as a potential world player. Neither the SU or the US viewed India as a potential challenger.

Countries at the top must be forever vigilant, even paranoid. They are not stupid enough to militarily build up a country which they believe may become a serious challenger one day. The doling out of high tech knowledge is a carefully calibrated act -- they will never give out their top-of-the-line technology. Even today, the US has limited military engagement with Europe in terms of weapons technology -- the only exception is Britain, because the US and Britain have a uniquely exceptional relationship.

 

[LetsGetRowdy]

respect our independent policy please

there is no such thing as independent indian foreign policy. the indian leadership works for british and americans. just look at who wields the most powerful position in the indian congress: an italian born and raised woman, not indian. india has been controlled by european powers for centuries and is still being controlled by them today.

how then will we know if india is truly independent? simple, once the US views you in the same light as iran or china or russia then it will be clear that they do not control you.

good luck india.

 

[venu309]

Who is Chunky Pandey ?

I'm sure Chunky Pandey himself would be asking the same question.

 

[bandit]

This discussion is not about Pakistan. .

India's increased ties with SU were a direct consequence of Pakistan firmly sitting in the US camp all those years. However India gave up on NAM when Nixon and his cronies openly threatened India, instead of merely supporting and arming Pakistan.

As much as Indians believe in the NAM charade, the reality is that the SU supported India as a direct counter to US support of Pakistan and, to a lesser extent, China. Yes, China was a 'midget' compared to the SU but, even in the 60s, both the US and SU viewed China as a potential world player. Neither the SU or the US viewed India as a potential challenger.

Some may find it hard to believe, but India has long had a tradition of not bending to foreign powers and of pursuing an independent policy.
SU did not support India in the sino-Indian war, nor did it India oblige by signing any Soviet support treaty like Cento and seato although that would have opened up more aid for India like US was giving to Pakistan. India openly protested against SU intervening in Afghanistan, again not bending to the relationship.

Countries at the top must be forever vigilant, even paranoid. They are not stupid enough to militarily build up a country which they believe may become a serious challenger one day. The doling out of high tech knowledge is a carefully calibrated act -- they will never give out their top-of-the-line technology. Even today, the US has limited military engagement with Europe in terms of weapons technology -- the only exception is Britain, because the US and Britain have a uniquely exceptional relationship

That is where Indian diplomacy outshines almost everyone, we get what we want, on our terms.
US couldnt make us bend on Nuclear deal or aircraft sales, Russia could not make us bend to give them priority on defence sales, Europe is openly wooing and infighting to grab a pie in India and parting with their latest technology.

 

[crimemaster_gogo]

SU perceived the US and China as worthy adversaries; India was never in that league, as far as the SU was concerned, and not worth wasting time on. For the SU, India's only role was to serve as a thorn in the side of China, nothing more.

but nowadays you see our relation (Russo-India) on equal terms don't you ? not that I'm saying current Russia to be as superior to its soviet era but India has progressed a lot in many fields and now speaks to many countries on equal terms.

.so the same case is with pakistan here where china sees it just as a thorn in India's way of progress and rise and gateway to oil and resources rich middleast. but pakistan never speaks to anyone in equal terms its always been slave and master relation always demanding/begging/taking loans with its allies like US china, never made your own decisions on the other hand India makes its own decisions and has independent foreign policy. you guys can be classed along with Bangladesh Nepal SriLanka. these are the countries that will speak you on equal terms, pakistan is out of India's league.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The point was that China was seen as having the strength to be a potential rival to the SU, whereas India was not perceived to have such capability.

That is the same reason why we were wary of the USA and the USSR, and had even fought against both of them (Korean War and Sino-Soviet split).

China typically has good relations with Russia, but the USSR was simply far too powerful to have as a neighbour.

India was not in the picture back then, and even today is not viewed as a threat on its own. Despite their clearly negative intentions towards us, they don't have the capability or the political will to threaten us directly. Only indirectly, by supporting troublesome groups against us.

 

[huzihaidao12]

And who were you to decide they are oppressed? The turnout of which you see even today. Now don't show me those CCP photos. Liberation as your party terms, was just a means for further land grabbing.

I guarantee that slavery is an oppression, not to mention a medieval slavery and religion, which is common sense.

Tibetans today have voted, the only Lama to go crazy, there is no Tibetan civilians to participate in any protest, this is the best proof.

And yet you thought you could grab Vladivostok right under their nose using their weapons eh? .

I do not know what you want to say, I think it does not have a relationship and I said.