What's new

U.S. Congressman supports NDAA amendment to include India in NATO plus five countries

.
LOL these are the same American faggots that beg Pakistan and China all day long to break their relationship.

Here the Yanks are deep in India's rear and that is all fine.
 
.
'Relevant'...I like your choice of words.

Look, you're more than welcome keep strong ties with whomever you want. We got not issues with that. Just get your shit together with the CAA & the NRC or whatever the hell is going on, on your side. Putting the blame on Pakistan by stating that the ISI is behind 2 Million Muslims revolting is a joke.

Its a new year. Please don't continue the trend of being the joke 2nd year running.
When did I claim any of that? And Happy New Year to you too.

Quite wrong. It’s the stupid which suffer in American partnership. Counter-examples are South Korea and Japan.

US has many allies around the globe, most of them doing great. Pakistan suffered due to its own failures. Had it not been US pressure, India would have certainly captured your territories in ‘71 war.
India did capture important parts of Pakistan Baltistan and many peaks north of Kargil, which Pakistan unsuccessfully tries to take back in 1999. Taking Bangladesh was out of the question though. There simply was no good way to integrate a country that big into India.
 
.
This isn't good news for Pakistan. An upgrading of India's status with regards to arms sales to India (to the level as Israel and South Korea) will have serious repercussions for Pakistan, more especially on the LoC. In fact it would be most hard hitting on Pakistan on the LoC and will give India a huge advantage in its aim to enter Azad Kashmir. Where are the Pakistani lobbyists in Washington DC? Have they been fast asleep??

Indians are in every field in US, tech, finance, energy, manufacturing and entrepreneurship...
and they are fiercely nationalistic people... they are all lobbying for india somehow or the other.. pakistanis here pretend to be indians sometimes, not proud of what their country stands for ..
its too late, Pakistan lost 90s and 2000s when internatiinal companies were moving out.. Pakistan didnt lobby to get FDI in the country due to restrictions in investment ..
its way too late.. 2001s was the only chance, pakistan got access to US markets but thy never lobbied to get micrsoft, amazon, intel or cisco to open manufacturing in Pakistan ... there are no visionaries in pakistan.. Corporations control foriegn policies and countries .. there arw no vestted interest in Pakistan for west, only in india .. sorry too late..
 
.
And it was supposed to protect whose interest?

If they are American citizen eating American and earning here, they should be working for American interests not Bharti junk.

India did capture important parts of Pakistan Baltistan and many peaks north of Kargil, which Pakistan unsuccessfully tries to take back in 1999. Taking Bangladesh was out of the question though. There simply was no good way to integrate a country that big into India.

Which brand of cow CA cola you are high on?
 
.
India did capture important parts of Pakistan Baltistan and many peaks north of Kargil, which Pakistan unsuccessfully tries to take back in 1999. Taking Bangladesh was out of the question though. There simply was no good way to integrate a country that big into India.
in which part of Gilgit baltistan you're talking about and which strategic peaks in Kargil you took. are you're on high, please gives us the proofs with sources/links
 
.
If they are American citizen eating American and earning here, they should be working for American interests not Bharti junk.



Which brand of cow CA cola you are high on?
Already a thread about that on PDF
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/sudd...of-captured-kashmiri-villages-of-1971.296921/

in which part of Gilgit baltistan you're talking about and which strategic peaks in Kargil you took. are you're on high, please gives us the proofs with sources/links
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/sudd...of-captured-kashmiri-villages-of-1971.296921/
 
.
India’s cheerleaders in the US Congress

The news regarding India’s MNNA status surfaced from a source hitherto less talked about among foreign policy analysts. The source? A vocal legislative constituency in US Congress that steadfastly works towards bolstering ties between the two countries: the House and Senate India Caucus.

After Trump remarked that Modi had requested him to mediate on Kashmir during a press interaction alongside Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, the House India Caucus sprung to India’s defence. In a joint statement, Congressman George Holding and Congressman Brad Sherman who Co-Chairs the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, asserted that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan and went on to add that the need for the hour was to combat terrorism and extremism throughout South Asia (obviously in reference to Pakistan). The fact that the congressional caucus clarified its stand speaks of their role as an enduring partner that India can expect in times of executive uncertainty.

Recently there was an attempt by Brad Sherman, along with Tulsi Gabbard, to designate India as a major non-NATO ally. Despite having bi-partisan support and co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, the amendment did not make it to the House Rules Committee – a fate similar to the corresponding amendment in the Senate, submitted by co-chairs Mark Warner and John Cornyn which also sought to give India NATO-equivalent status for arms sales. The broad concern was over India’s impending purchase of the S-400, which is likely to have contributed to the watering down of the amendment. Moreover, the Foreign Relations Committee has increasingly sought to chip away the contours of the executive authorization of weapons sale through the Arms Control Export Act (AECA). If India had received the MNNA status, then the White House could have notified the sale under the FMS program (Foreign Military Sales) and Congressional approval would have required only 15 days (as opposed to 30). Regardless of the final outcome of the said legislation, the efforts of the caucus are scantily dealt with in foreign policy analysis involving the two countries.

The Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans remains the largest country-specific caucus in the US House of Representatives ever since it was established in 1993 under the stewardship of Stephen Solarz, who was one of the few pro-India legislators at that time. The Senate India caucus, on the other hand, was formed in 2004 by Senator John Cornyn and Hillary Clinton, which was the first country-specific caucus and was instrumental in the smooth passage of the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal.
 
.
.
LOL, Look the source, its Indian and your're talking abut 71 we are living in 21 century and thing can be changed, we have total control of Gilgit Baltistan and AZAD KASHMIR, you living in your fantasy world fairy Tales
So you are denying Turtuk and surrounding peaks were once a part of Pakistan? Eventhe northern part of Kargil district was administered by Pakistan prior to 1971.

And we have the actual Kashmir.
 
.
This isn't good news for Pakistan. An upgrading of India's status with regards to arms sales to India (to the level as Israel and South Korea) will have serious repercussions for Pakistan, more especially on the LoC. In fact it would be most hard hitting on Pakistan on the LoC and will give India a huge advantage in its aim to enter Azad Kashmir. Where are the Pakistani lobbyists in Washington DC? Have they been fast asleep??

India can only gain real advantage over Pakistan if and when it acquires the capability to design, develop and economically mass produce conventional weapons to wage war. Simply buying American weapons off the shelf cannot give India a real edge; whatever India can buy from US, Pakistan could handle with China’s benevolence.

The reverse is also true.
 
.
So you are denying Turtuk and surrounding peaks were once a part of Pakistan? Eventhe northern part of Kargil district was administered by Pakistan prior to 1971.

And we have the actual Kashmir.
Don't troll, there were no control of Pakistan before 71 for such a high and useless terrain, so you illegally occupied it, its a international dispute according to UN, and we took your part Kashmir In 48 and you did nothing but crying out loud in front of the world ( UN) why you will try and take it back:p:;):enjoy:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom