Pres. Trump will be in attendance at 'Howdy Modi' event in Houston

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Are you claiming that Al Gore wouldn't have done the same?  Bullshit.

I am claiming what has happened. Not what would’ve been. I am stating facts. Republicans removed embargo’s put on us by Democrats.

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

This is completely false.  Bush was a moron who was led around by his nose.  It was the American foreign policy establishment that had realized post-Kargil and post-economic reforms, that their India policy needed a long overdue adjustment.  It had nothing to do with Bush "deciding" anything.  

How bloody convenient. Anything the republicans do well, it’s not them, it’s the deep state. Anything they screw up, it’s them. You are sounding like a Democrat shrill. 

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

And neither did the Obama administration do "Ind-Pak equal equal mode".  IIRC it was under Obama that India worked out NSG exemption.  With both Pakistan and China crying like little babies to no avail.  

NSG has nothing to do with India Pakistan equal equal on Kashmir, which is a Democrat centrepiece in West Asia and Subcontinental foreign policy. 

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

These are overly broad generalizations that are by definition, false.  Trump is a transactional arsehole, and is looking everywhere , anywhere, for areas and decisions where he can claim victory to his rabid paranoid ignorant base.  And he has attempted to bully India by removing tax exemptions that India enjoyed as a developing country, etc in order to extract trade concessions from India.  He has pressured India further to buy more arms from US, and will continue to do so.  Any US President, Republican or Democrat will act largely the same with India, and continue its defence co-operation with India as a bulwark against China, as well as a market for its arms and other goods.  There is no special benefit that India gains from a Republican administration that it can't achieve with a democratic one.  

Yes it does and yes it has gained benefit. More deals defensively have gone down under the republicans than democrats. More India friendly policies pass the Senate under republicans. republicans have a  committee for India favouritism in Defense, democrats do not. The republican deep state is far more India friendly than the Democrat one. That is self evident. 

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

But this "Republicans are good for India" is one of those false myths that some folks like to bandy around, and it makes them feel like they know what they are talking about.  Let the facts lead you to the conclusions, not the other way around.

The facts are decisive that in the last 20 years India has benefitted more militarily and geopolitically when USA is run by republicans than democrats. 

[coffee_rules]

14 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Expect radio silence on this obvious parallel from the rejoicing "right-wingers".   Empty vessels do make more noise after all.

Russia has always endorsed Congress governments secretly in the  past and has helped assassinate PMs and others like Bose. Pakistan too favors INC and we have INC leaders asking for help to eluminate Modi.

 

This esteemed gentleman gets his panties in a wad if we call him names, but can't debate without doing the same.

 

We are not rejoicing Trump getting endorsed by Modi, but, see nothing wrong if Modi did it to build partnerships. Next time Pak runs to UNSC we need leaders to back India over Pak or to isolate Pak even further. If Trump is talking against China, being a friend of the POTUS helps India get the edge over China.

[sandeep]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

More deals defensively have gone down under the republicans than democrats. More India friendly policies pass the Senate under republicans.

 

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The facts are decisive that in the last 20 years India has benefitted more militarily and geopolitically when USA is run by republicans than democrats. 

Please post actual facts rather than tall claims.   Repeating your assertions don't make them any more accurate.

[sandeep]

Just now, coffee_rules said:

Russia has always endorsed Congress governments secretly in the  past and has helped assassinate PMs and others like Bose. Pakistan too favors INC and we have INC leaders asking for help to eluminate Modi.

 

And do you think such blatant interference is acceptable?  No, right?

 

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

We are not rejoicing Trump getting endorsed by Modi, but, see nothing wrong if Modi did it to build partnerships. Next time Pak runs to UNSC we need leaders to back India over Pak or to isolate Pak even further. If Trump is talking against China, being a friend of the POTUS helps India get the edge over China.

I'm all for building partnerships.  Point is to build them in the best way possible, for the best possible outcome for India - we simply have a disagreement on the specific actions of endorsing Trump explicitly and politically.  I mean, I do not deny that there is short term gain in this - The rally with thousands of people, a few phrases thrown as a biscuit to assuage Trump's ego - a guy who desperately loves crowd adulation - is an understandable ploy.  But anything more than that - Netanyahu territory - would have more costs than benefits.  

[sandeep]

22 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Militarily and strategically Obama administration gave us a lot more bamboo than Republicans have.  Hillary is actually far more pro Pakistan on Kashmir than anyone else and she ran the foreign relations team under Obama. 

Please provide evidence for these tall claims.

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, someone said:

Its fortunate that Modi is a genuine patriot statesman, who didnt take it personally, and thus choose to work with US irrespective of past actions. 

Corrected 

[Vilander]

8 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

Please post actual facts rather than tall claims.   Repeating your assertions don't make them any more accurate.

dadu does not roll like that, will state the same thing that he posted again and again. He thinks writing the last post means he has won something. 

[sandeep]

32 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

What part of post Clinton did you miss ? We are talking 20 years later buddy. 

Just like pre-Clinton Republicans, who were virulently anti-India, in word and deed, evolved their positions, so have the democrats.  You made the claim that Republicans are more "geostrategically aware".  When you make such a claim, you bring into the discussion the hopelessly poor geostrategic decisions made by previous Republicans.  

 

You are making the mistake of equating rhetoric and lip service paid by Democrats aspiring to "globalism", when in fact when it comes to the actual substantive policy side of things, Democratic administrations have continued the trend of closer Ind-US ties in the last 2 decades.  

[Muloghonto]

On 9/23/2019 at 1:26 PM, panther said:

It's ok we don't need your peace.

Yes you do. That’s why you go beg to the world to do something when we kick your paedophile worshipping butts over and over again in wars. 4-0 buddy 

[coffee_rules]

5 minutes ago, Vilander said:

dadu does not roll like that, will state the same thing that he posted again and again. He thinks writing the last post means he has won something. 

I agree with him regarding this issue. Hillary had a pro-Pak stance over India or the same Obama polcy of equal importance. She would've sided Pak over India, good riddance. Bernie appointed a campaign manager who is the son of Pakistani immigrants. Mostly Bernie's Kashmir utterances are typed by this dude. Obama when parting patronized India on religious freedom based on a hinduphobic US state body USCIRF, which wants India allow more conversions. This made the libtards un India jump in joy

 Indian Americans still voted en masse to democrats in all previous elections, clearly showing they don't vote based on what is good for India.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiWmq3hp-rkAhWJZd8KHRgKA4sQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-india-obama%2Fin-parting-shot-obama-prods-india-on-religious-freedom-idUSKBN0L00FD20150127&psig=AOvVaw2GJQyx82GWgelOHxV95hNe&ust=1569443763381988

 

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Just like pre-Clinton Republicans, who were virulently anti-India, in word and deed, evolved their positions, so have the democrats.  You made the claim that Republicans are more "geostrategically aware".  When you make such a claim, you bring into the discussion the hopelessly poor geostrategic decisions made by previous Republicans.  

My claim Ian relevant from post Clinton era, which I specified in the opening post to you. The Nixon era politics are just as relevant as the fact that the democrats represented the pro slavery party and actively enslaved people while republicans represented the freedom of people party.  

10 minutes ago, sandeep said:

You are making the mistake of equating rhetoric and lip service paid by Democrats aspiring to "globalism", when in fact when it comes to the actual substantive policy side of things, Democratic administrations have continued the trend of closer Ind-US ties in the last 2 decades.  

False. It’s Republican bush era politics that did far more for India than Obama era. That is objectively evidenced 

[Muloghonto]

32 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

Please post actual facts rather than tall claims.   Repeating your assertions don't make them any more accurate.

the history of Indo US strategic partnerships in the last 20 years is self evident. I can’t help if you are completely ignorant about that. But let’s just say that it’s decisive enough for me to vote Trump next time around 

[sandeep]

16 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

It’s Republican bush era politics that did far more for India than Obama era. That is objectively evidenced 

Where is this "objective evidence"?  

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

the history of Indo US strategic partnerships in the last 20 years is self evident. I can’t help if you are completely ignorant about that.

Apparently its "self-evident".  The only thing that is "self-evident" is that "strategic" partnerships between countries do not live and die by domestic elections, they are based on national interests and conducted largely by subject matter experts who guide the elected leadership.  And those elected leaders are going to make foreign policy decisions based on national interests, not on personal or partisan interests.  The exception being criminal bumbling idiots like the Donald and his silly attempt at strong-arming Ukraine, which is going to lead to his impeachment soon.  

[panther]

21 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes you do. That’s why you go beg to the world to do something when we kick your paedophile worshipping butts over and over again in wars. 4-0 buddy 

Nehru ran to the UN not us.

[sandeep]

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

My claim Ian relevant from post Clinton era, which I specified in the opening post to you. The Nixon era politics are just as relevant as the fact that the democrats represented the pro slavery party and actively enslaved people while republicans represented the freedom of people party.  

So your claim that "Republicans are more geostrategically aware" is only restricted to the 2 idiots Dubya Bush and Donald?  These 2 morons wouldn't know geostrategy if it smacked them in their faces.  But please continue to impress me with your silly claims of geo-strategery.  

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, panther said:

Nehru ran to the UN not us.

Very true.  But Nehru died in 1964.  And its been the Pakistani state that's been begging at the UN to "intervene" for the last 50 years.  While India has been consistently batting away such pleas based on the iron-clad legality of the Shimla agreement, which was duly signed by the leaders of the surrender-monkeys.  No amount of begging and lying changes the facts and legal substance.  J&K state signed an accession to India. Legally.  Pakistani state signed a commitment to resolve all disputes including Kashmir, bilaterally.  End of story.  

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

Where is this "objective evidence"?  

In the body and chronology of US-India strategic partnership deals involving military and UN voting records. 

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

Apparently its "self-evident".  The only thing that is "self-evident" is that "strategic" partnerships between countries do not live and die by domestic elections, they are based on national interests and conducted largely by subject matter experts who guide the elected leadership. 

Sure. But there are many camps of national policy. You are too ignorant to see this. In 80s USSR had the glasnost camp vs the iron curtain camp. Similarly today you have the multipolar nationalistic camp vs unipolar or non polar globalist camp. Republicans favour the former, democrats favour the latter. In the prism of these the national policies are made, outside of what would be decisive red zone issues. 

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

And those elected leaders are going to make foreign policy decisions based on national interests, not on personal or partisan interests.  The exception being criminal bumbling idiots like the Donald and his silly attempt at strong-arming Ukraine, which is going to lead to his impeachment soon.  

LoL. He won’t be impeached. Mueller report shows us that. Read the damn report, it’s public. 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

So your claim that "Republicans are more geostrategically aware" is only restricted to the 2 idiots Dubya Bush and Donald?  These 2 morons wouldn't know geostrategy if it smacked them in their faces.  But please continue to impress me with your silly claims of geo-strategery.  

The two span 12 of the last 20 years, so yes. The last 20 years is what matters to us. Actions speak louder than words and their party’s deep state tilt is more multipolar nationalist world. Under these administration India has benefitted a lot more strategically and its decisive when Obama came to power is the first time since Clinton that the US State department reaffirmed India-Pakistan as twin principles on Kashmir. It’s the same pro democrat media mouthpieces that are questioning India’s legitimate abrogation of 370. The pro republican media is far more pro India on this issue. 

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, panther said:

Nehru ran to the UN not us.

You ran to both the US and USSR to stop the war when we owned u in 1971 and made buttmonkeys out of your paindoo Pathan and Punjabi army. Largest surrender since Kursk is from the Pathan Punjabi paeodphile worshippers 

[panther]

5 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Very true.  But Nehru died in 1964.  And its been the Pakistani state that's been begging at the UN to "intervene" for the last 50 years.  While India has been consistently batting away such pleas based on the iron-clad legality of the Shimla agreement, which was duly signed by the leaders of the surrender-monkeys.  No amount of begging and lying changes the facts and legal substance.  J&K state signed an accession to India. Legally.  Pakistani state signed a commitment to resolve all disputes including Kashmir, bilaterally.  End of story.  

 

 

I do not believe in dialogue, only the sword will settle this.