Better American Ally: India or Pakistan?

[Kingpoleon]

Obviously most people agree we need to keep a balance so that there isn't another war. However, if we must choose one to focus on once they agree to a nonaggression pact, should we choose to ally with Pakistan to give us a base near Afghanistan, Iran, and China? Or should we choose to ally with India to give us an economic counterbalance to China?

[Green Line]

Pakistan, despite the Bin Laden thing.  Ive never trusted India. 

[Santander]

Pakistan is the only one of the two which is technically an American ally. India is about as diplomatically ambiguous as a large country can get. So this is not even a question...

[OSR stands with Israel]

India duh as they are enemies against radical islamic terror , while Pakistan harbors them.

[TDAS04]

The one that didn't provide nuclear technology to North Korea (sane).

[The_Doctor]

The one without a radical Islamic problem and the one that hates radical Islam.

[Blue3]

The world's largest liberal democracy, even more multicultural than the US, and a rising economic power that will surpass the US and China this century. But had the nerve to be neutral during the Cold War.

Or the economically and socially backwards country, tainted by Islamic extremism and a history of military dictatorships, and had government/military officials who helped secretly harbor the #1 most-wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden and helped give nuclear secrets to North Korea. But was our "ally" during the cold war and is supposedly now.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So tough.

Yeah, going to go with India. No question about it.

[Santander]

How can people say that India would be the better ally when they are not an ally while Pakistan is? I know this is a hypothetical, but the only way to make it possible is to break the alliance with Pakistan. The people who are in favor of India in this thread are not the kinds of people who like breaking alliances.

Yes, our alliance with Pakistan is an offensive alliance of convenience against terrorism that will end after the objectives are met, but the condition to breaking that alliance then becomes defeating terrorism, or just breaking the commitment, which would be extremely dangerous and irresponsible given the situation in the region. Indo-Pakistani relations don't really play into this.

Paradoxically, if the region became stable enough that we no longer needed to work with Pakistan against terrorism, the radical Islam issue becomes irrelevant and the majority of Pakistan (Punjab, Islamabad, Sindh) would become "better" than most of India, which is no less backwards than Pakistan outside the 4 (or 5 now, if you must) South Indian states of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, which are culturally, linguistically, and ethnically distinct from the rest of India. South Indians are Dravidians, not Aryans, and most Tamils only have limited knowledge of Hindi and are far more proficient in English, which they prefer. Big northern states like Bihar, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana are are unbelievably backwards, with stats like extremely imbalanced sex ratios proving so.

The point is, becoming an ally of India is paradoxical given the existing political situation.

[OSR stands with Israel]

How can people say that India would be the better ally when they are not an ally while Pakistan is? I know this is a hypothetical, but the only way to make it possible is to break the alliance with Pakistan. The people who are in favor of India in this thread are not the kinds of people who like breaking alliances.

Yes, our alliance with Pakistan is an offensive alliance of convenience against terrorism that will end after the objectives are met, but the condition to breaking that alliance then becomes defeating terrorism, or just breaking the commitment, which would be extremely dangerous and irresponsible given the situation in the region. Indo-Pakistani relations don't really play into this.

Paradoxically, if the region became stable enough that we no longer needed to work with Pakistan against terrorism, the radical Islam issue becomes irrelevant and the majority of Pakistan (Punjab, Islamabad, Sindh) would become "better" than most of India, which is no less backwards than Pakistan outside the 4 (or 5 now, if you must) South Indian states of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, which are culturally, linguistically, and ethnically distinct from the rest of India. South Indians are Dravidians, not Aryans, and most Tamils only have limited knowledge of Hindi and are far more proficient in English, which they prefer. Big northern states like Bihar, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana are are unbelievably backwards, with stats like extremely imbalanced sex ratios proving so.

The point is, becoming an ally of India is paradoxical given the existing political situation.

Gujarat may be one of the best states in India

[Blue3]

Another good reason to pick India: great potential ally to balance China.

[Clarence Boddicker]

The one that didn't harbor bin Laden for a decade.

[TDAS04]

How can people say that India would be the better ally when they are not an ally while Pakistan is? I know this is a hypothetical, but the only way to make it possible is to break the alliance with Pakistan. The people who are in favor of India in this thread are not the kinds of people who like breaking alliances.

Yes, our alliance with Pakistan is an offensive alliance of convenience against terrorism that will end after the objectives are met, but the condition to breaking that alliance then becomes defeating terrorism, or just breaking the commitment, which would be extremely dangerous and irresponsible given the situation in the region. Indo-Pakistani relations don't really play into this.

Paradoxically, if the region became stable enough that we no longer needed to work with Pakistan against terrorism, the radical Islam issue becomes irrelevant and the majority of Pakistan (Punjab, Islamabad, Sindh) would become "better" than most of India, which is no less backwards than Pakistan outside the 4 (or 5 now, if you must) South Indian states of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, which are culturally, linguistically, and ethnically distinct from the rest of India. South Indians are Dravidians, not Aryans, and most Tamils only have limited knowledge of Hindi and are far more proficient in English, which they prefer. Big northern states like Bihar, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana are are unbelievably backwards, with stats like extremely imbalanced sex ratios proving so.

The point is, becoming an ally of India is paradoxical given the existing political situation.

Gujarat may be one of the best states in India

Haryana is also one of the nation's richest.

[Santander]

Haryana has the worst sex ratio of any state India. It may be relatively developed thanks to its proximity to Chandigarh and Delhi, but it is backwards as hell. UP, Bihar, Gujarat, and Rajasthan are pretty bad, too. Even Punjab, with its fertile land and steady stream of remittances, is just as bad as any North Indian state.

[Beet]

South India is traditionally the most progressive part of India. Bengal also had a very strong left. Northwest India is the most conservative. I believe it is due to the Middle Eastern influence spilling in from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[The Govanah Jake]

India. Great counter-wait to china in Asia.

[Senator-elect Spark]

India

[I’m not Stu]

India duh as they are enemies against radical islamic terror , while Pakistan harbors them.

Easily India. Pakistan is no ally. Pakistan's government funds terrorists.

[Vosem]

India. Pakistan is one of several of our "allies" where our alliance is entirely a Cold War holdover and no longer makes sense in the modern world (the most egregious such "alliance" being with Turkey, otoh).