India Could Act As A Check To Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Donald Trump

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

SOURCE: NDTV

With Pakistan having a nuclear arsenal that could fall into wrong hands in the event of the south Asian country becoming unstable, India could act as a check, US presidential aspirant Donald Trump has asserted.

Aspirant for the Republican Party nomination for the US presidency, Mr Trump suggested the involvement of India if Pakistan goes unstable, emphasising that the country could go rogue despite there being some semblance of sanity at the moment when compared to North Korea.

“India’s the check to Pakistan. And you have to get India involved. They have their own nukes, they have a very powerful army. They seem to be the real checkmate,” Mr Trump was cited by Tolo news as having said during a presidential debate on Friday.”They seem to be the real group, and I would start talking at that level very, very quickly,” Mr Trump asserted.

Mr Trump also was of the view that US forces should remain in Afghanistan to protect the nuclear weapons of Pakistan.

“I think you have to stay in Afghanistan for a while, because of the fact that you are right next to Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons and we have to protect that,” he said, adding that “nuclear weapons change the game”.

While pointing towards the nuclear weapons that Islamabad possesses, Mr Trump had last year also said that Pakistan was “a serious problem” if it became unstable in the future.



India Could Act As A Check To Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons: Donald Trump


Trump As Lord Vishnu? How Hindus In America Are Campaigning For Donald Trump

 

[jung41]

This fool man can say anything he like but the fact is India should remain cautious with US

 

[Indika]

Mr Trump also was of the view that US forces should remain in Afghanistan to protect the nuclear weapons of Pakistan.

Trump: We need to be in afghanistan to make sure china does not get to central asia and play the old game of using terrorists. India is just an convenient excuse.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

A trump post laughter a day keeps the doctor away

 

[ito]

What I like about Trump is that he doesn't beat around the bush. If he has a point, he makes it.

 

[Icarus]

What I like about Trump is that he doesn't beat around the bush. If he has a point, he makes it.

Yes, he is a fool who is not afraid of flaunting his bigoted ideals and most rudimentary understanding of statecraft and military affairs. Truly a beacon of our times since 'speaking your mind' seems to be the new standard for amounting to something, in that regards Baghdadi not only speaks his mind but implements it across vast tracts of land and punishes dissent with barbaric punishments, you must really fancy him.

 

[paritosh]

India would rather make the tougher choice of solving it's problems with it's neighbors and ensuring peace than be America's pawn.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

India would rather make the tougher choice of solving it's problems with it's neighbors and ensuring peace than be America's pawn.

That's a much better strategy for sure.

America doesn't take good care of their pawns. As the Philippines, Georgia and the Ukraine found out in the last few years (all of whom lost a big chunk of territory for their troubles).

They treat their pawns as literal meat shields. Basically they want their meat shields to absorb as much damage as possible that might otherwise be directed towards them.

 

[ito]

Yes, he is a fool who is not afraid of flaunting his bigoted ideals and most rudimentary understanding of statecraft and military affairs. Truly a beacon of our times since 'speaking your mind' seems to be the new standard for amounting to something, in that regards Baghdadi not only speaks his mind but implements it across vast tracts of land and punishes dissent with barbaric punishments, you must really fancy him.

Now that is an incorrect comparison. Trump winning across states show that he appeals to a large sections of US population, while Baghdahi is a terrorist who has subjugated a country using force and violence.

If US people want Trump to be their President, that is their wish and they should get it and it is democratic. Personally, I think for India and either Trump or Clinton will be good for India with Clinton marginally better for India. Trump will be direct while Clinton will be subtle, but if you look into their respective foreign policy, there is not much of a difference.

India would rather make the tougher choice of solving it's problems with it's neighbors and ensuring peace than be America's pawn.

India is too big and diverse too be a pawn of any other country. But US being the most powerful and influential, a US president that is favorable to India is always better. If not for US, India would not have been this near to become a NSG member and certainly India needs all the US help to become a member of UNSC.

 

[paritosh]

That's a much better strategy for sure.

America doesn't take good care of their pawns. As the Philippines, Georgia and the Ukraine found out in the last few years (all of whom lost a big chunk of territory for their troubles).

They treat their pawns as literal meat shields. Basically they want their meat shields to absorb as much damage as possible that might otherwise be directed towards them.

How America treats her allies aside, it is nonsensical to brew wars in your own backyard for a country that sits across the pacific.
We are emerging countries, today it's China they are afraid of, tomorrow it will be India. Indians and Chinese are good at math and there is not much required to calculate how to see through shyte.

 

[Icarus]

Now that is an incorrect comparison. Trump winning across states show that he appeals to a large sections of US population, while Baghdahi is a terrorist who has subjugated a country using force and violence.

Baghdadi has enough support to raise a local army and call in support from across the world. Make people abandon their well-established livelihoods and families to go and live in dismal conditions where death is practically living on your doorstep. So I don't see why the comparison is incorrect when we are talking about mass support.

If US people want Trump to be their President, that is their wish and they should get it and it is democratic. Personally, I think for India and either Trump or Clinton will be good for India with Clinton marginally better for India. Trump will be direct while Clinton will be subtle, but if you look into their respective foreign policy, there is not much of a difference.

Trump does not have a foreign policy, he is winging it as he goes along and this fact has been reaffirmed by a number of people who are more qualified to comment on the matter than I am.

Former CIA director: Military may refuse to follow Trump’s orders if he becomes president - The Washington Post
Cornered Neocons: Trump’s heresy on foreign policy has put Republican hawks in nightmare scenario — backing Hillary Clinton - Salon.com
Donald Trump's foreign policy: 'Let Russia fight ISIS' | Sun Times National
So Trump’s Foreign Policy Would Match That of a Good Sophomore Model U.N. Delegation | Foreign Policy
Romney: Trump’s ‘Imagination Must Not be Married to Real Power’ ’ | Foreign Policy
Donald Trump's awkward foreign-policy interview - Business Insider

 

[paritosh]

India is too big and diverse too be a pawn of any other country. But US being the most powerful and influential, a US president that is favorable to India is always better. If not for US, India would not have been this near to become a NSG member and certainly India needs all the US help to become a member of UNSC.

America likes to control things. I love the country for it's ethos apart from it's foreign policy.
The NSG is a control mechanism and the entry barriers are to keep members in as well.
Do you realize that we are in the mot effed-up of all the regions in the world with two belligerent nuclear nations bordering us?
Screw the UNSC, we have a good thing going on here, let's not lose sight of serving what need is more critical.
If the entry into NSG = fighting wars for them, then I say let's invest in hydroelectric power.
I personally feel the odds of Pakistan attacking India are much higher as they have nothing much to loose. China needs diplomacy to resolve. In either case, our deterrence should be sustainable and not based on the seasonal whims and fancies of a proven unpredictable 'ally' sitting half the world away from us. I would any day enter into a military pact with Israel than the US.

 

[ConcealCarry]

That "Drumpf" his real name before he changed it to "Trump" needs a quick lesson in history, It was Pakistan which "Check-mated" indian nuclear program not the other way round

 

[Old School]

USA has just one true ally - Britain. The rests are poodles. Americans are concerned that Saudis and other gulf states might buy Pakistani nukes off the shelves. With a 30 year old de facto King , that is a very dangerous situation indeed.

 

[ito]

Baghdadi has enough support to raise a local army and call in support from across the world. Make people abandon their well-established livelihoods and families to go and live in dismal conditions where death is practically living on your doorstep. So I don't see why the comparison is incorrect when we are talking about mass support.



Trump does not have a foreign policy, he is winging it as he goes along and this fact has been reaffirmed by a number of people who are more qualified to comment on the matter than I am.

Former CIA director: Military may refuse to follow Trump’s orders if he becomes president - The Washington Post
Cornered Neocons: Trump’s heresy on foreign policy has put Republican hawks in nightmare scenario — backing Hillary Clinton - Salon.com
Donald Trump's foreign policy: 'Let Russia fight ISIS' | Sun Times National
So Trump’s Foreign Policy Would Match That of a Good Sophomore Model U.N. Delegation | Foreign Policy
Romney: Trump’s ‘Imagination Must Not be Married to Real Power’ ’ | Foreign Policy
Donald Trump's awkward foreign-policy interview - Business Insider

Mercenaries work for Baghdadi. And democratic institutions don't work that way. My point is if US people want him to be their president, it is what they deserve, and not much the world could do anyway.