What's new

Why did nobody mention India during Obama-Romney debate?

India needs USA more than the vice versa so no point giving importance because US can wrestle its interest with India...

I wouldnt really agree with that. The United States needs India for potential markets, and India needs the US for technology transfer and investments. And we did fine without them for quite some time. So I wouldnt say India needs the US more. Cuz politically we dont really side with them or oppose them. So they neither have an advantage or a disadvantage in India, so its understandable America doesnt have a separate strategy for us. Neither are we at war with them, nor are we some sort of strategic partner.

For all the big talk among Indians how they will be a superpower, India has and will remain a footnote in this world.

America don't need to talk about countries they control like India, Japan, South Korea, etc.

They will talk about their threats.
Terror is a big pest to the yanks.
China is a geopolitical rival.

India has alot of ambitions but India will never be great.
It will always be a pawn in the grand chess game between big powers.
Only reason India is important to America is to contain china.

Learn to live with it.

Needless Chest thumping. Yes, economically you guys are 2nd, so you are bound to come up in a debate, but this doesnt mean you are even close what the US is - economically, militarily or politically. So please, have some sense of modesty and reason. China is not a superpower, now, and it wont be in the 21st century. It has too many problems, an aging population and for all the growth only a minor increase in HDI compared to India with 300 million below the poverty line people. China will only be a Global power, and India will catch up and yes we will be close behind.
 
If India was not discussed, meant they don't see India with hostility in the USA.
 
jiska paisa bolata hai to usake bare me koiee nahi bolata :lol:

they need india India , their market , economy , Next Power in world.

There was a time of America , it's rising time of China , Future is India.

every dog has it's day..

China is here to stay as they are realising their potential and looking at them historically, they are going back to the glorious days when they contributed a quarter of the world GDP. And US is not going anywhere. As for India, the next decade will show whether she will recover from the temporary setback - setback for the past 250 years.(to quote Manmohan - the peak for India's GDP percentage wrt world's was in 1700 and the low was in 1952)
 
-this was a debate.

u debate on topics were there is a a lack of Consensus.

- America dopes not needs to debate on non issues tht don't have immediate ramifications or an undercurrent of urgency.

- America initially was a little to overzealous in countering China by pitting India against it ,but Indian Actions of resiting any for of American intervention in India foreign policy, have kinda turned off the heat and put it on a low simmer.

Clearly Indicating tht this process will be long and though out not based on impulses.

-Recent delegations of Americans in India only point to one thing, tht America has already chalked out a road map and the India-America relationship dynamics have already been decided and agreed upon.
 
Whats the big deal if India was not mentioned in the debate????
Did anyone watch the entire debate?
The countries they mentioned were libya, egypt, syria, israel, turkey, quatar, saudi arabia,
Iran, afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, China......
They didnot even mention North korea...Which i find strange....:what:
They didnot mention South korea, Taiwan, South china sea dispute
 
They were debating on Problem states.....obviously India is not problem for them...then why will they debate India.....

Useless thread to satisfy EGO....
 
The funny thing is that Romney was pro-choice when he was the Governor of Massachusetts, a liberal American state. :woot:

I prefer Obama as a person, I think he is more honest and trustworthy.

But I feel the Republicans will be better for China in terms of economic policy. And I think Republicans will be more pro-Israel as well for you guys.

True, but I think if Romney is elected there will definitely be wars fought in the future. Republicans and war are like Irish men and alcohol. Where there is one, the other is close behind...

Also this is a guy who believes in a religion that has him wear "magical" underwear and says that God lives on a planet called "Kolob"

:disagree:
 
The funny thing is that Romney was pro-choice when he was the Governor of Massachusetts, a liberal American state. :woot:

I prefer Obama as a person, I think he is more honest and trustworthy.

But I feel the Republicans will be better for China in terms of economic policy. And I think Republicans will be more pro-Israel as well for you guys.

The Republicans are pro rapture, advancing Zionist causes because they believe it will facilitate the second coming of Jesus. Especially the Mormons they are the worst of the bunch.

If you watched the first debate Republicans claim they won because Obama looked confused but the reality is poor Obama was flabbergasted that Romney was so willing to blatantly lie and it caught him off guard. The 10 votes in my family will be going to Obama.

True, but I think if Romney is elected there will definitely be wars fought in the future. Republicans and war are like Irish men and alcohol. Where there is one, the other is close behind...

Also this is a guy who believes in a religion that has him wear "magical" underwear and says that God lives on a planet called "Kolob"

:disagree:

You forget that these are the same people who believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers.
Although I figured Zionists would be pro Mormon as they are the most vocal in support of your country.
 
Maybe this time the sea is referred to as the sea of gold or as sea of thing good for iran , sea of way to get out of trouble, :sick:

yea i suck at explaining maybe we should stick to this

Why would you want these morons talking about your country anyway? :rofl:

Giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming he isn't a blundering idiot, and taking in the context of the debate (which was shipping arms to its puppet groups in Gaza and Lebanon), he could have been referring to it being the only allied port with which they could ship unmonitored arms to said groups.


He epicly fails for not explaining himself properly regardless, and that's not really a good quality in a CiC.
 
Back
Top Bottom