Should America ditch Pakistan for India?

[Felch]

China and India are very much on the same page in terms of regional economic policies, and have signed numerous agreements to that end in the past few years. Their relations have improved significantly.

Here are a couple pages about recent tension (past few months).

This is pretty clearly a Chinese perspective.

The Times has a more pro-Indian angle.

While I agree with KH that China is clearly the dominant power, I still believe that India is the only other regional state that has the potential to rival them. Japan is still a major player, but demographics favor India over Japan. A Western strategy that encircles China with India, Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan could be effective in moderating Chinese ambition. Toss in Australia, New Zealand and the United States and that could be the NATO of the next century. Vietnam, or a post-junta Burma might also look for entry into a collective security agreement.

I know that predicting foreign policy is usually a fools errand, but aside from India the core six are all countries that have been historical allies of the United States, and they are all likely targets if China were to aggressively expand its sphere of influence. I think that the West should hope for China's rise to be peaceful, but to prepare for the possibility of it being violent.

[Dinner]

You reap what you sow. The US is more than a little responsible for the ****hole Pakistan has become.

Truthfully Pakistan's border region has always been a ****hole. You should read some of the first person accounts of British soldiers serving on the frontier in the 19th and early 20th centuries as their full of fairly decent descriptions of the war like nature of the farmers/part time bandits who make up most of the population that area. If they weren't pursuing blood feuds with their neighbors in the same village then they were fighting with a neighboring village and if neither of those were happening then they were shooting at government soldiers. Lawlessness, banditry, and causal murder have always been part of the culture there and that's why even the Pakistani government has never had control over the area.

Supposedly war and fighting was almost like a sport for these people (on the frontier) and they'd often go raiding or taking pot shots at other people just because they were bored. That area has always been lawless, violent, and completely backwards.

[Dinner]

If Iraq was a US colony, there's no way in hell US oil companies would've been completely shut out of the Iraqi oil contracts that were just awarded.

That has more to do with US oil companies trying to low ball the Iraqis thinking they'd have no other choice but it turns out Chinese, Russian, and other country's companies wanted in and were willing to submit better bids. That tells me US firms really are arrogant and still think they're the only game in town or else they would have submitted better bids instead of trying to dictate terms. Instead of trying to actually compete they've instead sat around crying about how unfair it is that other companies submitted better bids to the Iraqis.

[Wezil]

Truthfully Pakistan's border region has always been a ****hole. You should read some of the first person accounts of British soldiers serving on the frontier in the 19th and early 20th centuries as their full of fairly decent descriptions of the war like nature of the farmers/part time bandits who make up most of the population that area. If they weren't pursuing blood feuds with their neighbors in the same village then they were fighting with a neighboring village and if neither of those were happening then they were shooting at government soldiers. Lawlessness, banditry, and causal murder have always been part of the culture there and that's why even the Pakistani government has never had control over the area.

Supposedly war and fighting was almost like a sport for these people (on the frontier) and they'd often go raiding or taking pot shots at other people just because they were bored. That area has always been lawless, violent, and completely backwards.

Agreed.

The difference now is that the P- government is under pressure to bring "law" to these areas. They (the religious nuts) are responding in the only way possible. The idea that the Taliban want to assume control of the country (mentioned earlier in the thread) is absurd as most Pakistani's don't want them and they know it. These groups are attempting to get the government to back off "their" areas by terrorizing all parts of the country. If and when the government does back off things will calm elsewhere, with the exception of Afghanistan of course...

[Drake Tungsten]

Instead of trying to actually compete they've instead sat around crying about how unfair it is that other companies submitted better bids to the Iraqis.

If Iraq were really a US colony, our oil companies wouldn't have to compete with anyone, you dumb****.

[Dinner]

Actually several Pakistani Taliban leaders have said their goal is to set up an Islamic state (much like Taliban Afghanistan) in Pakistan. They're also assassinated tons of government officials including some of the President's family members, at least one former President, and have attempted to assassinate the previous President on several occasions. A good 40%-50% of the population says they support them too plus they've repeatedly tried to militarily expand outside of the frontier areas so I wouldn't call an Islamist take over out of the question in Pakistan.

[Dinner]

Instead of trying to actually compete they've instead sat around crying about how unfair it is that other companies submitted better bids to the Iraqis.

If Iraq were really a US colony, our oil companies wouldn't have to compete with anyone, you dumb****.

First of all, ********er, I was not the one claiming Iraq was a colony. I merely pointed out that your claim that "the US had been frozen out of oil contracts" was false. The US companies had equal footing but chose to be arrogant and try to low ball the Iraqis thinking the US government would strong arm the Iraqis into accepting the low ball deals.

Talk to the canuck about the colony claim because I never made it nor voiced any support of it so clean the **** out of your ears, you dumb ****.

[Drake Tungsten]

I merely pointed out that your claim that "the US had been frozen out of oil contracts" was false.

I made no such claim, you ****ing moron. I said the US was "shut out", ie. didn't win any contracts. That's exactly what happened, you utter ****ing ******.

Jesus, you're almost as bad as KH...

[Wezil]

Oerdin -

Be careful about believing what religious leaders say. Their fundamental beliefs are based upon BS.

Even at 40% (a higher number than usually cited) a takeover of the country isn't possible. The assassinations are more indicative of what they can actually do. Political instability is their goal. Most Pakistanis, while not supporting the religious extremists, would prefer leaving the tribal areas alone over the instability.

[SlowwHand]

How does shut out differ from not winning any contracts?

[Wezil]

One could argue "shut out" implies they weren't allowed to compete whereas "didn't win" means they competed but failed.

It's quite possible these two are talking past each other.

[SlowwHand]

I think that's likely. Semantics, more than anything. If a sports team doesn't score, they're shut out. They still had an opportunity.

[Drake Tungsten]

One could argue "shut out" implies they weren't allowed to compete whereas "didn't win" means they competed but failed.

Only a ****** would read it that way. Even Oerdin was smart enough to claim I said the US was "frozen out" instead, which does carry that connotation.

[Wezil]

Yes, I would take "frozen out" to be a stronger version of "shut out".

Let's have some credit here, I doubt a ****** would get that far with the distinction.

[SlowwHand]

Wezil, you offered him an out and he flat ass refused it. I commend your effort.