CC1981 Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 Yes yes that verbal attack always gets your point across. Carry on! It wasnt a verbal attack, it was an honest comment : I already said earlier on this thread that in socio-political terms, the democrats have a greater vision than the republicans and tend to view things on case-by-case basis. But their adherence to the 'big picture' means they often miss the finer points and more realistically, the 'realpolitik' side of politics. And whats USA gonna do about it? Back us more enthusiastically in the international scene - like the republican-led US govt currently pulled strings to get India okayed for the nuclear fuel import/export club without giving up our testing rights. Stop asking other countries to help you out ofb your own mess. This is realpolitik. EVERY country asks other countries to help them out if they can and need i remind you that the US specifically asked for help from the Polish resistance to break the enigma code ? What the hell is wrong in asking for technological help anyways - you are hinting towards 'self sufficiency and stop askign people for help' in a technological sense and that is one sure-fire way to stagnate and fall behind. Technological advancement is directly proportional to interconnectivity between your nation and the world in both cultural and political terms. USA has been unable to help Pakistan against Jihadists for how many years now?? Don't play the fool with me. How is US going to help Pakistan against the Jihadis when pakistan's own military and government is in bed with the jihadis ? Its completely different scenario with India, where US technology and advanced training can make very tangiable difference to the terrorism aspect. Heck US has been unable to help out themselves against Jihadis!!! So how many terrorist bomb blasts have happened in the US since 9/11 ?? If India has to get a solution against Jihadist it has to come out with a solution on its own. Sure help from International countries are always welcome but that doesnt, hell shouldnt, shape your policy. Duh- India's solution to jihadis will ultimately have to come from within- that is the socio-political conclusion thats inescapable. But it doesnt mean that US technological and military hardware help (something that the Republicans are far more inclined to parth with to India than the democrats) is unwanted and the idea that the US help in this regard cannot be potentially decisive, atleast on the military/casualty front, is preposterous, bordering on complete ignorance of the military prowess of the US to dent militant Islam. And to think that our international policy cannot be shaped or atleast, influenced by the developments in the US is utterly naive and politically suicidal. The way the world's mightiest nation- economically, culturally and militarily- is going to swing, isnt going to affect others, especially potentially strong allies ?? When the US's own international policy has been shaped by the political developments of far smaller and inconsequential nations like the banana republics in central americas or Pakistan etc., then how can you say that our foreign policy shouldnt be affected by US political developments ? If the mightiest country on this world can modify its foreign policy based on the developments in itty bitty nations, on what basis do you say that a relatively middle-weight player like India shouldn't be open to policy changes based on what happens politically in the mightiest nation on this planet ?? How??? Spell it out for me. You are acting as a short-term seller at NYSE who is looking at 1 month window. Help me understand how over a period of say 10-15 years, a good solid run, Republicans are better than say Democrats. That period would be heavily dependent on how these candidates fare in 1(or 2) Presidential stint. Heck I am not sure if McCain would even last a full stint for crying out loud. I've already spelt it out for you and the democrats here. A 10-15 year Republican run in the whitehouse would be a boon for republic of India. As i said earlier, republicans are more lassez-faire capitalists : they are NOT into as much controlled economics as the Democrats are. Sure, from YOUR perspective- a man eking out a living in the US in the era of outsourcing and globalization, the protectionism of the Democrats may seem manna from heavens, but to REPUBLIC OF INDIA and the overwhelming bulk of its citizenry, the lassez-faire capitalism of the Republicans are far more palatable, as the economically conservative(relatively speaking) policies of Obama and the Democrats are definitely going to lead to a slowdown of outsourcing to India. This point is categoric and i don't want to debate you on something that is as categoric as that, expressedly said so by both the competing candidates. Secondly, the Republican machinery sees the Secular Republic of India as an ally against Islamism and fascism in Asia - it is the ONLY democratic populist nation in Asia apart from Japan which can make a categoric impact on Asia as a whole- the fact that Republican presidents like Bush Snr. and Jnr. have been far more pro-India in international diplomacy ( US just recently stuck its neck out and coaxed the IAEA club to ratify India's application despite not meeting the mandatory CTBT and NPT demands- the US made concessions to certain parties on this regard too- go to bharat-rakshak.com and read up on the politics section, its too voluminous to post here). It is categoric- through their voting patterns in the senate that McCain is far more pro-India than Obama. McCain was one of the FEW who voted AGAINST the Hyde act- which impacts Indo-US weapons trade negetively while Obama voted in favour of it. Again, categoric that McCain is the better candidate from the perspective of India the nation. Thirdly and finally, it is also categoric that the republicans have bigger ties to the defence industry and are heavier than the democrats in weapons sales to foreign nations ( Holds true since Trueman era atleast- republicans have given more weapons aid to other nations than democrats have) and the republicans have parted with more weapons than the democrats as far as India is concerned. Virtually ALL the significant military acquisitions from the US has come under Republican leadership - they have shown strong interest in winning the MMRCA contest ( a tender for 200 jets), being the sole nation to have two independent companies competing in the bigger MMRCA picture ( Boeing and L-M), they have given us the Phalanx defence system - the most formidable defence system for the navy in the world today, they have given us PHALCON, they have given us Asia's ONLY Amphibious transport dock, etc etc. Therefore, it is clear that McCain represents a rosier picture for India than Obama as far as economics, military and international politics go- which is as categoric as it gets, really. Because generally speaking Pro-Democrats have a penchant for reasoning perhaps? Instead of taking your, or anyone else's, word on face value they are asking questions, and giving their own viwpoints. Whats your argument with that? Oh please ! Reason my foot - as i said earlier, i think you are confusing YOUR obviously better status-quo under the Democrats with that of Republic of India. I know that you prefer Democrats because democrats represent a better/rosier future for Indo-Americans and basically all colored folks in the US. I've not disputed that and i can also totally understand that. But don't confuse what is good for Indians in the USA to be the same as good for Indians in India. If you really wanted to reason, this argument wouldn't have progressed this far- it is categoric that Republicans represent more benifits for India than the Democracts on three most important fronts as far as country-to-country relations are concerned : economics, military and foreign policy. A hallmark of reasoning is to address the point specifically. You, as well as every single long-time member here knows that i am hyper-liberal. You should know better than to think i am being unreasonable, especially when i am siding with the WASP-side of the US politics. What you fail to realize, is that as far as the lead question to this thread is concerned, there is absolutely no debate that the Republicans are better than the Democrats for Republic of India- and one aspect of reason is to give credit where its due- even when its to your rival camp/camp you agree with the least. This is one such case, which is why i have made the exception and support the conservative WASP party over my hyper-liberal inclinations. I suggest you try seeing the picture as it relates to Republic of India and not Indo-Americans.
Recommended Posts