Revived: plan to give access to bases to US

[Indo-guy]

Doesn't Cuba have a lease agreement with the Americans signed in 1903 and renewed in 1934 for Guantanamo bay?

The United States assumed territorial control over the southern portion of Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty.[1] The United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over this territory, while recognizing that Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty. The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as illegal and insists the Cuban–American Treaty was obtained by threat of force and is in violation of international law. Some legal scholars judge that the lease may be voidable

- Wikipedia


the great beholder of justice - USA does not recognize International Court of justice ..and therefore no case can be contested against US .


Opinio Juris: Cuba, the Guantanamo Treaty, and the International Court of Justice

 

[Abingdonboy]

we will be more than happy if your country stops nosing around the world .

Your country is cause for the greatest death and destruction on this planet .

As the sole superpower in the world the US can do what it likes bro, it pays to be king.

That said @US_statedept_retired there are but a few nations in the world who stand up to the US and don't accept their every word as gospel- China, India, Switzerland and Russia. Of these Switzerland isn't at all a threat nor powerful enough to truly get in the way of America's interests. Then we have Russia and China, we all know the history the US and Russia share which continues today. China is being projected as the US's next great threat because it refuses to lay down before the US and that just leaves India. Whether by carrot or stick the US is trying to ensure it remains th sole superpower in the world, as is their right, and thus don't be surprised when people in India question the US's motives and are reluctant to jump into bed with you.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

Doesn't Cuba have a lease agreement with the Americans signed in 1903 and renewed in 1934 for Guantanamo bay?

Well, before I can proceed I will have to establish if you know the difference between a Treaty and a logistically agreement? Because if you did, I'd suspect you would not ask me that question.

 

[turkish]

Well, before I can proceed I will have to establish if you know the difference between a Treaty and a logistically agreement? Because if you did, I'd suspect you would not ask me that question.

It actually doesnt matter!! Any agreement or a treaty where another country will use our port will not be acceptable to the political mass of this nation. And especially if the nation is US, India remembers the sanctions that your country posed on us after 98'. Friendship with US is little tricky.. its a new thing and maybe it needs time to mature before we fully trust you like we trust the Russians.

 

[Indo-guy]

Well, before I can proceed I will have to establish if you know the difference between a Treaty and a logistically agreement? Because if you did, I'd suspect you would not ask me that question.

he did not ask that question to you ...he asked that question to me ..and that too because I had quoted the case of Cuba and Guantanamo bay dispute .

 

[Koovie]

That would be a pretty dumb move. Not only for practical reasons but also political ones.
Besides, who the heck can trust the Americans?

They even shamelessly spy on their closest allies! Ask the Germans...

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

The United States assumed territorial control over the southern portion of Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty.[1] The United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over this territory, while recognizing that Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty. The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as illegal and insists the Cuban–American Treaty was obtained by threat of force and is in violation of international law. Some legal scholars judge that the lease may be voidable

- Wikipedia


the great beholder of justice - USA does not recognize International Court of justice ..and therefore no case can be contested against US .


Opinio Juris: Cuba, the Guantanamo Treaty, and the International Court of Justice

You've already established that you don't really read any article before you opine on it. I suggest you don't add links that you don't read or have a basic reading comprehension of.

Both your articles say we have a right via a treaty established. Look at Guantanamo like you look at Kashmir. Maharaja signed a treaty with India and in 1903 we had a cuban -American treaty signed. Now the other side says it was under duress and they want it back.

 

[Abingdonboy]

You seem have a low opinion about your country obviously whether intentionally or not I'm not sure. In the entire piece above you seem to think by signing a logistical agreement, you will immediately become America's b-i-t-ch.

That you will cease to be allowed to develop other assets, listening posts, military alliances or agreements if chose so. That everything will be is lost, your country will lose its sovereign land and the U.S will govern it- and by that extension you will be the 51st state of United States America and underlying indian subcontinent ! Jai Hind will cease to exist

ALL because of a logistical agreement. Alright then!

All I'm saying is a logistical agreement is where it starts. Please do not try and play ignorant to how nations pursue their national interests, you are far too experienced in this field and far too intelligent for this sir. No nation in the world is a benevolent one who would sacrifice its own interests for the sake of another's. The US is pushing for all these deals because it suits the US, this is all I need to know. Yes there may be some fringe benefits for India but this is of little utility today and when it will be of interest is when India will have such bases and facilities abroad for itself.

By not signing this agreement India is not abandoning its global power ambitions, purely showing that it would prefer to go it alone.

Which US "ally" is a global power in its own right? Japan? No. Britain? No way. Australia? Nope Korea? Negative. A correlation perhaps? The only one who has the true independent ability to project its own power and serve its own interests almost independently of US assistance is France and this is the nation that is often touted as being the most fiercely independent and difficult with the US to work with.

Reminds me of:

"they don't want to be Britain but they do like to be France"



Forgive me for saying you are being a little intentionally naive for implying my entire gripe is that the LSA automatically makes India the US's b*tch, no, this is clearly not the case, but it is a step in that direction. Was Rome built in a day? The US will bit by bit keep India going down this road and before you know it India has lost identity and will no longer be independent. The examples are for all to see, perhaps the most dramatic example now is the UK.

 

[Indo-guy]

You've already established that you don't really read any article before you opine on it. I suggest you don't add links that you don't read or have a basic reading comprehension of.

Both your articles say we have a right via a treaty established. Look at Guantanamo like you look at Kashmir. Maharaja signed a treaty with India and in 1903 we had a cuban -American treaty signed. Now the other side says it was under duress and they want it back.

so why did US supported Pakistan on Kashmir all this while ?

it shows duplicity of US ..and that's why we do not trust US .

Legal experts have said that the treaty is voidable ...and if current Cuban govt want to void it ...why the hell US is not vacating the Guantanamo bay ? I will tell you why ? because US is superpower and it does not care for wishes of small country like Cuba .

 

[Abingdonboy]

Well, before I can proceed I will have to establish if you know the difference between a Treaty and a logistically agreement? Because if you did, I'd suspect you would not ask me that question.

Of course I know the difference and I wasn't actually questioning the legitimacy of the US's presence in Guantanamo, I actually believe the US has every right to be there. I don't think the Cuba case is applicable to this situation.

And again, sir, the crux of my ire does not lay with this LSA, it is what this LSA will lead to....

 

[Ind4Ever]

It's a Master Stoke . Anyway us know about our ports and stuff . Giving access to them be a check mate of China string of pearls. It's a nice move to negotiate with China to rap up its operations in indian ocean. .. Am sure Russian will put pressure on China to stay away from Indian ocean so India won't allow USN a grand access to IO. .... Nice move If u ask me

 

[Abingdonboy]

so why did US supported Pakistan on Kashmir all this while ?

it shows duplicity of US ..and that's why we do not trust US .

Come on bro, this is the real world. Everyone does what suits them best. Supporting Pakistan when they did suited the US's interests, one can hardly begrudge them that.

One day India is going to have to abandon its moral superiority and get its hand dirty, this is what it takes to be a "big boy" at the "big table". Knowing this however, it is only right to mistrust the US's intentions entirely.

 

[Ind4Ever]

Friends nothing to worry about . They already have very single details of ports . It's much needed to keep Chinese and other Chinese stoog to let Chinese to harbour their warships and subs. ...

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

All I'm saying is a logistical agreement is where it starts. Please do not try and play ignorant to how nations pursue their national interests, you are far too experienced in this field and far too intelligent for this sir. No nation in the world is a benevolent one who would sacrifice its own interests for the sake of another's. The US is pushing for all these deals because it suits the US, this is all I need to know. Yes there may be some fringe benefits for India but this is of little utility today and when it will be of interest is when India will have such bases and facilities abroad for itself.

By not signing this agreement India is not abandoning its global power ambitions, purely showing that it would prefer to go it alone.

Which US "ally" is a global power in its own right? Japan? No. Britain? No way. Australia? Nope Korea? Negative. A correlation perhaps? The only one who has the true independent ability to project its own power and serve its own interests almost independently of US assistance is France and this is the nation that is often touted as being the most fiercely independent and difficult with the US to work with.

Reminds me of:

"they don't want to be Britain but they do like to be France"



Forgive me for saying you are being a little intentionally naive for implying my entire gripe is that the LSA automatically makes India the US's b*tch, no, this is clearly not the case, but it is a step in that direction. Was Rome built in a day? The US will bit by bit keep India going down this road and before you know it India has lost identity and will no longer be independent. The examples are for all to see, perhaps the most dramatic example now is the UK.

I'm not intentionally trying to be naive. Rather I'm intentionally trying you to see the reality of engagement requested- and not what you imagine it to become. Till to date you have yet to furnish any historical or any evidence to back up your claim.

Next- all those countries are global powers, just not a superpower. And when it comes to superpower, once USSR broke up, there will be no superpower to challenge us. I would argue; because those countries chose to be a NATO partner they became a developed country. A combined military alliance allowed them to spend less on their military. Allowed to them to establish trade and commerce among like minded partners and flourish into rich developed counties.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

So you did not read the article?

Because there are no claims as " such bases", it's either your base we get logistical support or our base you get logistical support in the respective countries. Nobody is building their own " such base" in either countries case.



No you are not, you have it with Oman and few counties I believe. You were even requesting an Air Force base in Kazakhstan or tajikistan- I forget

Association with YOU GUYS. You guys have a reputation for going after everything with a sledge hammer. That's why India has stayed away from many of your 'adventures'.