Effects of Trump calling Pakistan enemy of civilization, India to take charge

[Middle-aged Europe]

Hahahaha, "I'm going to war for Trump" my ass.

[GeorgiaModerate]

We need to guide India's development and mold it in our image.

trying to nation build in INDIA???

good luck with that.....my god

The Indian political system, unlike ours, is not broken.

When it comes time to make sure that America does not fall into the depravity of politics that it now wallows, maybe we could learn from the world's leading democracy. One sixth of the world's population, you know. 

You mean the country that had many incidents of election-related violence, resulting in dozens of death, in 2014?  That's a less broken political system than ours?

[publicunofficial]

We need to guide India's development and mold it in our image.

trying to nation build in INDIA???

good luck with that.....my god

The Indian political system, unlike ours, is not broken.

When it comes time to make sure that America does not fall into the depravity of politics that it now wallows, maybe we could learn from the world's leading democracy. One sixth of the world's population, you know. 

Yes, Modi could teach Trump a thing or two about being respectful towards Muslims in your country.

[SoLongAtlas]

Great move and long overdue. I am for going a step further and cutting all ties and assistance funding to Pakistan, considering that they have been funding terrorist groups for decades and continue to look the other way.

Also, CrabCake's analysis is spot on.

[OSR stands with Israel]

We need to guide India's development and mold it in our image.

trying to nation build in INDIA???

good luck with that.....my god

The Indian political system, unlike ours, is not broken.

When it comes time to make sure that America does not fall into the depravity of politics that it now wallows, maybe we could learn from the world's leading democracy. One sixth of the world's population, you know. 

LMAO ,The US political system is much better than India's.The Indian political system is broke in ways the US political system isn't .


Only reason it seems that India's is better , is that Modi's party (The BJP) won a majority in parliament all
by itself which in US terms is like one party winning the presidency,house and senate with a filibuster proof majority.

[Matty]

We need to guide India's development and mold it in our image.

trying to nation build in INDIA???

good luck with that.....my god

The Indian political system, unlike ours, is not broken.

When it comes time to make sure that America does not fall into the depravity of politics that it now wallows, maybe we could learn from the world's leading democracy. One sixth of the world's population, you know. 

LMAO ,The US political system is much better than India's.The Indian political system is broke in ways the US political system isn't .


Only reason it seems that India's is better , is that Modi's party (The BJP) won a majority in parliament all
by itself which in US terms is like one party winning the presidency,house and senate with a filibuster proof majority.

Don't listen to pbrower2a. Dude is an aging union hack who wears very very heavy red goggles.

[HisGrace]

He could just say something totally different at a news conference 10 days from now so who cares. I'm not sure what incentive India has to become super involved here, either. I thought there was a chance he was going to announce the beginning of a withdrawal which would have actually given me something to praise him for doing.

Pakistan is our ally. India is not. You stand with allies no matter if they're right or wrong. To talk like this is unacceptable.

Pursuing a better relationship with India is fine, but the relationship with Pakistan is crucial for reasons already discussed in this thread. Alienating them isn't smart strategically.

[pikachu]

Good, Pakistan murders religious minorities, refuses to stand up against terrorism and harbored Osama Bin Laden. We should cut them off from our nation until they cooperate on basic human rights. #EndTheAid

Just hilarious that you of all people are excited about allying with a state governed by Hindu nationalists.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Good, Pakistan murders religious minorities, refuses to stand up against terrorism and harbored Osama Bin Laden. We should cut them off from our nation until they cooperate on basic human rights. #EndTheAid

Just hilarious that you of all people are excited about allying with a state governed by Hindu nationalists.

Lmao ,at most Modi is as right wing on religious issues as  the Christian Right is here which is still way way way better than radical Islam any day .

[Santander]

Good, Pakistan murders religious minorities, refuses to stand up against terrorism and harbored Osama Bin Laden. We should cut them off from our nation until they cooperate on basic human rights. #EndTheAid

Just hilarious that you of all people are excited about allying with a state governed by Hindu nationalists.

Lmao ,at most Modi is as right wing on religious issues as  the Christian Right is here which is still way way way better than radical Islam any day .

Even if that were true (which it is not), India has far more religious diversity than the US (which is basically Christian with a significant "cultural Christian" non-believer minority, with Jews, Muslims, etc. being tiny minorities), and as such, Hindu nationalism in India means something very different than Christian nationalism in the US.

[Kingpoleon]

Both the statement and some of the supportive comments here sound pretty ignorant of both historic context and current conditions.

The reasons Pakistan has been a US ally is that India was a Soviet ally, with socialism written into their constitution. So it's not strange or weird in any way. With the modern-day successes of the BJP this is changing, of course. Pakistan remains an important ally because they can cause a ton of trouble if designated a foe.

India can't vanquish any local foes because the 2 they have are China and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear powers (and in the case of China economically and militarily stronger).

"I mean, yeah the Pakistanis are worse on human rights and democracy than India, but at least they can fight terrorism(and fund it)."

Come on, you're better than this. If needed, India could do as much or more than Pakistan in Afghanistan.

I have been advocating this for a long time, and I'm glad to see Trump beginning this.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Good, Pakistan murders religious minorities, refuses to stand up against terrorism and harbored Osama Bin Laden. We should cut them off from our nation until they cooperate on basic human rights. #EndTheAid

Just hilarious that you of all people are excited about allying with a state governed by Hindu nationalists.

Lmao ,at most Modi is as right wing on religious issues as  the Christian Right is here which is still way way way better than radical Islam any day .

Even if that were true (which it is not), India has far more religious diversity than the US (which is basically Christian with a significant "cultural Christian" non-believer minority, with Jews, Muslims, etc. being tiny minorities), and as such, Hindu nationalism in India means something very different than Christian nationalism in the US.

Most of the religious diversity is in Hinduism it self, as if you look at religious demographics in India and compare them with America , there is a higher percentage of people who are Hindu in India than Christian in America.


America(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Statistics):

Christian : 73.7%

India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#Religious_demographics)

Hindu : 79.8%



So your point is not correct.



Lastly about the idea that the forum believes that Modi was complicit in the 2002 riots, is totally wrong and was proven to be wrong by a congress stacked court.

[KingSweden]

I mean, long term a partnership w/ India will be smarter. Just hope a devolution of ties to Pakistan is handled gently. I won't hold my breath.

[Santander]

Most of the religious diversity is in Hinduism it self, as if you look at religious demographics in India and compare them with America , there is a higher percentage of people who are Hindu in India than Christian in America.

If you believe diversity is based on percentages, you don't even know what diversity means.

Of course most of the diversity is within Hinduism, just as most religious diversity in the US is within Christianity, and the most cultural diversity is within whites. If you consider Roman Catholics to be part of the majority as we generally do these days, then other than perhaps Judaism in the Northeast and Mormonism in Utah (which was founded after the political construct of the US was created), the US does not have the kind of religious diversity that India has with Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, and even Baha'is, most of which are woven into the history of India much tighter than any religious minority in the US, some even more than Catholics in the US. Overall, India is just plain far more diverse than the US. In addition, Hinduism cannot be viewed in the same way that we view Abrahamic faiths because it is a cultural and spiritual way of life and not a monotheistic faith.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Most of the religious diversity is in Hinduism it self, as if you look at religious demographics in India and compare them with America , there is a higher percentage of people who are Hindu in India than Christian in America.

If you believe diversity is based on percentages, you don't even know what diversity means.

Of course most of the diversity is within Hinduism, just as most religious diversity in the US is within Christianity, and the most cultural diversity is within whites. If you consider Roman Catholics to be part of the majority as we generally do these days, then other than perhaps Judaism in the Northeast and Mormonism in Utah (which was founded after the political construct of the US was created), the US does not have the kind of religious diversity that India has with Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, and even Baha'is, most of which are woven into the history of India much tighter than any religious minority in the US, some even more than Catholics in the US. Overall, India is just plain far more diverse than the US. In addition, Hinduism cannot be viewed in the same way that we view Abrahamic faiths because it is a cultural and spiritual way of life and not a monotheistic faith.

Yes I do know that ,but the question is what had Modi done where you can call him any more extreme than say George W Bush .

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Trump called out Pakistan, called on India to challenge Pakistan in Afghanistan, announced the end of nation building, to send more troops to kill more terrorists with no timetable. More economic support to Afghanistan, but Afghanistan no longer needs to be a democracy, but they need reforms.

I stand with the President.

[Gustaf]

Both the statement and some of the supportive comments here sound pretty ignorant of both historic context and current conditions.

The reasons Pakistan has been a US ally is that India was a Soviet ally, with socialism written into their constitution. So it's not strange or weird in any way. With the modern-day successes of the BJP this is changing, of course. Pakistan remains an important ally because they can cause a ton of trouble if designated a foe.

India can't vanquish any local foes because the 2 they have are China and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear powers (and in the case of China economically and militarily stronger).

"I mean, yeah the Pakistanis are worse on human rights and democracy than India, but at least they can fight terrorism(and fund it)."

Come on, you're better than this. If needed, India could do as much or more than Pakistan in Afghanistan.

I have been advocating this for a long time, and I'm glad to see Trump beginning this.

I honestly don't know what you're saying and how it relates to what I said. No, I don't think India can do the same things in Afghanistan as Pakistan since they don't share a border with the country and have no connections to it.

I get disliking Pakistan. Diplomacy is sometimes pragmatic. Complicated stuff, oh my.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Both the statement and some of the supportive comments here sound pretty ignorant of both historic context and current conditions.

The reasons Pakistan has been a US ally is that India was a Soviet ally, with socialism written into their constitution. So it's not strange or weird in any way. With the modern-day successes of the BJP this is changing, of course. Pakistan remains an important ally because they can cause a ton of trouble if designated a foe.

India can't vanquish any local foes because the 2 they have are China and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear powers (and in the case of China economically and militarily stronger).

"I mean, yeah the Pakistanis are worse on human rights and democracy than India, but at least they can fight terrorism(and fund it)."

Come on, you're better than this. If needed, India could do as much or more than Pakistan in Afghanistan.

I have been advocating this for a long time, and I'm glad to see Trump beginning this.

I honestly don't know what you're saying and how it relates to what I said. No, I don't think India can do the same things in Afghanistan as Pakistan since they don't share a border with the country and have no connections to it.

I get disliking Pakistan. Diplomacy is sometimes pragmatic. Complicated stuff, oh my.

[Pure geography pendatry here:]
Actually, the long skinny part of northeastern Afghanistan sort of shares a border with India: it borders a part of the disputed Kashmir region that India claims, but Pakistan administers.  More interesting is that the easternmost tip of this part of Afghanistan actually has a tiny border (less than 50 miles long) with China! 

[ProudModerate2]

trump has been making a mockery of our standing in the world.
He is destroying the relationships we have with many allies.
I wish our former presidents would assemble (Obama,  W. Bush, Clinton, maybe Carter) and travel to these countries and assure them that the USA is still on good grounds with them.

They should just tell these other countries, straight-up. that we currently have a mental case in the White House, to hold on for 3-1/2 years and everything will be better in Jan 2021 (or sooner).
I don't even care if the former Presidents went public with what they are doing, just to embarrass trump and his clownish administration.
You cant stop them, they are ordinary citizens who have a right to speak their mind (of course revealing no government secrets during their visits).

[Badger]

What was the India thing about? I didn't get a chance to watch the announcement.

IIRC Trump criticized Pakistan for being too leniant/soft/supportive of terrorism and hinted at building closer ties with India over Pakistan in the War on Terror.

Did he run any of this by anyone before blurting it out?

Probably not. The analysis on the news I heard this morning, for what it's worth if anything, this is exactly what's needed to make Pakistan Double Down on trying to disable eyes Afghanistan and avoid it becoming part of the India's orbit

[Blue3]

People should also remember that Afghanistan is basically just the part of India that the British and others couldn't conquer.

[pikachu]

Both the statement and some of the supportive comments here sound pretty ignorant of both historic context and current conditions.

The reasons Pakistan has been a US ally is that India was a Soviet ally, with socialism written into their constitution. So it's not strange or weird in any way. With the modern-day successes of the BJP this is changing, of course. Pakistan remains an important ally because they can cause a ton of trouble if designated a foe.

India can't vanquish any local foes because the 2 they have are China and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear powers (and in the case of China economically and militarily stronger).

"I mean, yeah the Pakistanis are worse on human rights and democracy than India, but at least they can fight terrorism(and fund it)."

Come on, you're better than this. If needed, India could do as much or more than Pakistan in Afghanistan.

I have been advocating this for a long time, and I'm glad to see Trump beginning this.

I'm not a fan of the Pakistani state, but it's silly to think any state will be able command as much influence in Afghanistan as much as Pakistan. Even if we deem Pakistan a foe and turn to India in Afghanistan, they're still going to fund the Taliban to prevent having adverse coutries on both sides of them. And ofc, Pakistan will always have more influence because of geography and India not wanting to get sucked into a quagmire.

[pbrower2a]

We need to guide India's development and mold it in our image.

trying to nation build in INDIA???

good luck with that.....my god

The Indian political system, unlike ours, is not broken.

When it comes time to make sure that America does not fall into the depravity of politics that it now wallows, maybe we could learn from the world's leading democracy. One sixth of the world's population, you know. 

Why is ours broken? Because your chosen candidate didn't win an election?

1. The legislative branch: gerrymandering is obvious enough in making politics unrepresentative. Rural areas are over-represented and urban areas are under-represented. Urban and rural areas vote very differently, and in a state like Michigan, such cities as Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Lansing, and East Lansing have their votes diluted in rural areas.

2. Again on the legislative branch: in practice, elected officials may be in the position in which they do nothing without consulting Party bosses before deliberating or voting  (indicating that democracy within the majority Party may be slight) or corporate lobbyists who serve as connections between financial backers and voting on issues in Congress.

Such suggests that a claim to democracy in America is weak.

3. State legislatures are much the same. The Michigan Republican Party has the sort of lockstep obedience from state legislators as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had over "elected" legislators in the old USSR.

4. The Presidential election may have been under the influence of foreign interests, including the intelligence services of another country -- and ORGANIZED CRIME domiciled in America but connected to another country.   

Participation in elections is for Americans. Foreigners are not allowed to make monetary contributions to federal elections. I know -- I have had to turn down contributions to my local Democratic Party in recent elections from non-citizens.


The system would be broken if my candidates had largely won with the aid of the Chinese dictatorship and Chinese tongs and triads loyal to China.

The United States of America has the sort of political reality in which government represents economic power instead of the People. That suggests in practice the Corporate State of Benito Mussolini, a political order in which legislative institutions represent economic interests instead of human constituencies. Basically one gets representation based on whether one is part of the automotive industry, agriculture, high technology, energy production, military contracting, medicine, etc. If you work in agriculture and you milk the cows (literally), then you are assumed to have the same interests as the ownership of the dairies (in fact dairying has gone from being a farming activity to becoming a factory-like operation, with most workers being treated like toilers in sweat-shops).     

In the Corporate State there is no possibility of a class struggle. There is no need for labor unions. Owners and executives dominate life, and others suffer for them, ideally with forced smiles.  That's Italy as Mussolini was consolidating dictatorial power and that's America today.

May we soon discover otherwise, that my fear has no foundation. In short, may I be wrong in my assessment of dangerous trends in American politics.   

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The real worrying aspect of this is that Trump has no ability to critically examine the proposals of anybody in uniform (or anybody who uses smarty smart words, but that's another matter). Which is very alarming - if you look at the history of the Cold War, even the most warhungry politicians often had to restrain and put leashes on their generals. But now Trump - with full complicity from the opposition and media, who view Mattis, Kelly and McMaster as the same men in the room - has put the military in full charge. The rules and regulations ("that [prevent] the secretary of defense and commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy” in trump's words) that Obama were placed for a reason - because the hands off approach had previously led to Tommy Franks et al blundering and various military atrocities (we are seeing this now in the increasing civilian death count in the anti-ISIS strikes). Let's hope there are no LeMay/McArthur types at the moment that have the president's ear.

Trump's adoration of the military is sinister. It's ironic that it's Pakistan being targeted, as if there is a major flaw of that nation from the beginning it's the fact that the military is venerated and politicians cower to them. The cynicism of politicians and uncritical admiration of military figures (and other uniformed forces) by the establishment (including Trump) is a recipe for usurpation of civilian power by such forces, presented as for the public's own good.

[Green Line]

There must always be civilian control of the military.  Very important.