Turkish lawmakers switch parties in challenge to Erdogan

[Aravind]

No, what I'm saying is that ISIS want every government overthrown, so the fact that ISIS is against them is no indication whether they're good or bad.

Yeah , so did Col. Ralph Peters map and you still do strikes against Assad to help ISIS. Your and their goals are the same.

You should take a look at the list of international laws that Saddam Hussein broke in the 1980s and early 1990s.

What exactly is a International law and who framed it? who are you to judge anybody or a country?
You broke many of "Your so called International laws"when you justified your military Invasions on lies.
Saddam was your Darling in 80's .You just looked the other way and supplied him weapons, when he went up against Iran, because you were bitter at losing Iran to the Ayatollahs and your lot getting kicked out of that country.

China would take over part of India if they became the dominant superpower and Russia wouldn't do jack to stop them. Russia has even started selling arms to Pakistan too.

China is not exactly, taking over India because you consider yourself some sort of Guardian. China knows what they will meet, Small nations like Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya,Vietnam etc. bled you when you were a Superpower. India is a total different ball game, the sheer number of troops it can mobilize will make it an Eternal war.
So, You are not doing us any favors.

You make it sound like we were there when he was kidnapped.

You were there and it all happened under your watch. The Scotland yard did nothing, even after getting notified, it happened on your soil. So there is no washing away your hands over it.

No one gives a flying rat's *censored* about your affairs.

Yeah, that is why Your Prince Charles came personally to invite our PM to London.
For a country that doesn't give a Rat's *censored* about our affairs, You have a dedicated BBC India office and India as a special section in all your Newspapers.
Don't kid yourself, you still would like to meddle in our affairs. That is why you support all those terror groups.

The US have enough ABMs to block your nukes and enough nukes to make you an extension of the ocean if they really wanted to.

Yeah right! They can't even take care of Taliban,Iraq, Vietnam or for the matter North Korea which daily threatens to Nuke USA and they would turn India into a Wasteland. You lay too much emphasis on ABM's.

Duterte is a special kind of idiot, who only came to power recently and will be gone when the country realise he's an idiot. He also needed the US to help when ISIS took over a city there.

He is your enemy because he is against you. He will remain in power for a long time and all your criticism about Human rights for his war on drugs makes him even popular.
USA didn't help jackshit in his war on ISIS, it was Russia which sold him weapons to take on ISIS,while USA blocked the sale of M16's to Phillipines, when he requested them.

The elected governments have asked for assistance yes. And this is different to an unelected leader asking for assistance, like in Syria, because the leaders actually have a democratic mandate to lead. An unelected leader is no different to a colonial invader, they rule without the will of the people. So Assad asks for help to protect his own *censored* and Russia obliges to avoid a competing oil pipeline and the forfeiture of a naval base, the wishes of the people are at the very bottom of their agenda. I'm sorry if this spoils what you heard on RT and Sputnik. Yes ISIS are against Assad too, but they're also against the people who are against Assad (Kurds, FSA etc.).

"Elected Governments" a funny name for your puppets.
In Syria, nobody asked you to intervene. Why is it your concern? or is it white mans burden?
You are there to make that country another Iraq,Libya.

Get down from your high horse . " Mr.Holier than thou"

 

[smestarz]

Getting into EU was a bad idea itself specially the common currency. IT is due to the common currency that countries like Italy and Greece inspite of lower exports did seem more "healthy" UK despite its big imports did not look that weak due to it not joining currency.
If the EU was developed based on actual status of minimum requirements then countries like Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal should not have been part of EU. YES free trade and no travel restrictions and common duty structure should have been there with a free-floating exchange rate of their currencies. For example, Greece which had a weak economy had stronger EURO as currency and hence good for imports, and they inadvertently made a bigger hole.

Of course, EU does not want any country to leave because more the countries in it the stronger is the union and better is their negotiating power. If there is NO EU which benefits most of the european countries they would be individually taken to task by the Americans as they did after the second world war. But being in EU as a block they have better negotiating power than an individual country.

Sure EU has a pathetic immigration policy, but UK has the most nos of foreigners, am very sure that more than half of UKs population is non-white, so what really to complaint about

Says who, BS media? Many who voted to remain would now vote toe leave simply because of the way the EU reacted. The media polls are all BS, they indicated 55:45 in favour of remaining before the actual referendum.

And that's still a valid reason. The EU system not only exposed a country to unlimited EU immigration but it also exposes you to the immigration policy of other EU nations.

 

[smestarz]

London has enough cars and pollution that can give man breathing problems, there is nice fresh air, fresh water and roads with less traffic which might take an average UK guy 2 hours that can be undertaken in 30 minutes.
BTW which fool told you that UK did not have terrorists, did you know that 7/7 was done by UK citizens and not outsiders?
The only difference in London and Kashmir is here we have terrorist coming from neighbour who we have to kill and get rid. and in london now there are droves of them just waiting to strike, Those, unfortunately, are BRITISH citizens now

I think you'll find the GDP of those cities very high. Resources come in different varieties. Kashmir on the other hand? There are public toilets of greater resource than that place and they don't have terrorists in them, although occasionally you see similar looking things floating in them.

 

[smestarz]

Soon UK will be #2 exporter of Terrorism, of course Pakistan being the #1
And then all the people carrying British passports would also be stripped searched. How far that day is you think?

I think you'll find the GDP of those cities very high. Resources come in different varieties. Kashmir on the other hand? There are public toilets of greater resource than that place and they don't have terrorists in them, although occasionally you see similar looking things floating in them.

 

[BMD]

Yeah , so did Col. Ralph Peters map and you still do strikes against Assad to help ISIS. Your and their goals are the same.

We conduct strikes against Assad because he uses Sarin and Chlorine gas against legitimate opposition forces, who are also fighting against ISIS.

What exactly is a International law and who framed it? who are you to judge anybody or a country?
You broke many of "Your so called International laws"when you justified your military Invasions on lies.
Saddam was your Darling in 80's .You just looked the other way and supplied him weapons, when he went up against Iran, because you were bitter at losing Iran to the Ayatollahs and your lot getting kicked out of that country.

Well what is a law if nobody enforces it?
Saddam Hussein's Violations of the Geneva Convention

China is not exactly, taking over India because you consider yourself some sort of Guardian. China knows what they will meet, Small nations like Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya,Vietnam etc. bled you when you were a Superpower. India is a total different ball game, the sheer number of troops it can mobilize will make it an Eternal war.
So, You are not doing us any favors.

Politics made Vietnam difficult, with an unrestricted menu of targets it would have been a doddle. No troops were in Libya. With Iraq and Afghanistan there was no real military opposition whatsoever, just cucks hiding among civilians and pretending to be civilians. It's also more difficult to win any game if you are largely playing by the rules and the other side isn't/

You were there and it all happened under your watch. The Scotland yard did nothing, even after getting notified, it happened on your soil. So there is no washing away your hands over it.

More half-baked non-factual garbage.
Killing of Ravindra Mhatre - Wikipedia

Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Quayyam Raja, then 27, were convicted of the murder of Mhatre.

Abdul Quayyam Raja was arrested and indicted in Birmingham in February 1984.[5]

Yeah, that is why Your Prince Charles came personally to invite our PM to London.
For a country that doesn't give a Rat's *censored* about our affairs, You have a dedicated BBC India office and India as a special section in all your Newspapers.
Don't kid yourself, you still would like to meddle in our affairs. That is why you support all those terror groups.

The BBC, like many news channels, is everywhere. Your head is filled with garbage. Just because we try to have diplomatic relations with both India and Pakistan, it doesn't mean we give a shit one way of the other about a mountain range between the two. There is no geopolitical or strategic importance there for us to care about.

Yeah right! They can't even take care of Taliban,Iraq, Vietnam or for the matter North Korea which daily threatens to Nuke USA and they would turn India into a Wasteland. You lay too much emphasis on ABM's.

As said before, Taliban and Iraqi insurgents hid among civilians and that's what made them difficult to kill. Militarily we could have just flattened the *censored*ing place WWII style and said, "done," but we were trying to pay some attention to international law. Equally many key targets were left off the menu during the Vietnam War due to the immaturity of guided weapon technology. North Korea poses a risk to South Korea if it was attacked and there is also the possibility of the war spreading. If however he fires one ICBM our way you will see it turned into the largest fire in human history.

He is your enemy because he is against you. He will remain in power for a long time and all your criticism about Human rights for his war on drugs makes him even popular.
USA didn't help jackshit in his war on ISIS

Err, yes it did.
US forces helping Philippines battle ISIS-linked fighters - CNN

"Elected Governments" a funny name for your puppets.
In Syria, nobody asked you to intervene. Why is it your concern? or is it white mans burden?
You are there to make that country another Iraq,Libya.

Nah, it's really a very simple system. A government is elected by the people in an election approved by UN observers. India manages it. Dude, it already is another Iraq, the civil war started in 2011. At first people thought Assad might be the best option to stop that, but 7 years later you just have to admit that theory was a load of shit, just as in 2010 people had to admit that the post-war planning in Iraq was a clusterfuck.

Get down from your high horse . " Mr.Holier than thou"

Get down from yours, nit-picking Western policy is just a Russian and Chinese-inspired way of supporting some of the worst regimes on the planet, whilst at the same time supporting their own goals.

 

[BMD]

Getting into EU was a bad idea itself specially the common currency. IT is due to the common currency that countries like Italy and Greece inspite of lower exports did seem more "healthy" UK despite its big imports did not look that weak due to it not joining currency.
If the EU was developed based on actual status of minimum requirements then countries like Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal should not have been part of EU. YES free trade and no travel restrictions and common duty structure should have been there with a free-floating exchange rate of their currencies. For example, Greece which had a weak economy had stronger EURO as currency and hence good for imports, and they inadvertently made a bigger hole.

Of course, EU does not want any country to leave because more the countries in it the stronger is the union and better is their negotiating power. If there is NO EU which benefits most of the european countries they would be individually taken to task by the Americans as they did after the second world war. But being in EU as a block they have better negotiating power than an individual country.

Sure EU has a pathetic immigration policy, but UK has the most nos of foreigners, am very sure that more than half of UKs population is non-white, so what really to complaint about

No travel restrictions is one thing, but no residence restrictions is another. You can't manage a country if you don't know how many people are coming, where they'll be going or how much they'll be paying in tax. And you can only expand infrastructure so fast even if you do.

The EU thinks no flexibility is the way it will keep the union together, even though that's what made Britain leave. More negotiating power is a lie constructed by idiots who don't understand trade. In a trade deal countries want more exports, if they're just going to get a shit-load of imports they're not interested regardless of how big the trading block they're dealing with is. And trade deals with the EU are more difficult because 28 nations have a veto on it, so in the end no nation really gets what it wants. Whereas an individual country dealing with a 3rd party only has to look at their own needs and match them with the needs of the 3rd party and an arrangement is far easier.

Wrong, even with London, more than half is white, just not British white.

 

[BMD]

London has enough cars and pollution that can give man breathing problems, there is nice fresh air, fresh water and roads with less traffic which might take an average UK guy 2 hours that can be undertaken in 30 minutes.
BTW which fool told you that UK did not have terrorists, did you know that 7/7 was done by UK citizens and not outsiders?
The only difference in London and Kashmir is here we have terrorist coming from neighbour who we have to kill and get rid. and in london now there are droves of them just waiting to strike, Those, unfortunately, are BRITISH citizens now

The difference between London and Kashmir is a GDP of $600bn.

 

[smestarz]

I want to ask you view/comment

You did talk about evil regimes of Saddam etc, and how it was right to punish them, ok
Let us go back to 1971 war between India and Pakistan, There was a genocide being done by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh (Americand and the British knew this, their records show that)
India was involved in taking on Bangladesh, then India was a democracy, Pakistan was a dictatorship
And yet the British and the Americans ganged up and wanted to enter and threaten the Indian forces in support of the Pakistani forces.

Please do explain this point to me. The supporters of the Democracy,, the Yanks and Brits ganging up against a Democratic country which is trying to save a country from Genocide... and clearly the two countries showed support for Dictator led pakistan conducting genocide.

Your export comments please

We conduct strikes against Assad because he uses Sarin and Chlorine gas against legitimate opposition forces, who are also fighting against ISIS.


Well what is a law if nobody enforces it?
Saddam Hussein's Violations of the Geneva Convention


Politics made Vietnam difficult, with an unrestricted menu of targets it would have been a doddle. No troops were in Libya. With Iraq and Afghanistan there was no real military opposition whatsoever, just cucks hiding among civilians and pretending to be civilians. It's also more difficult to win any game if you are largely playing by the rules and the other side isn't/


More half-baked non-factual garbage.
Killing of Ravindra Mhatre - Wikipedia




The BBC, like many news channels, is everywhere. Your head is filled with garbage. Just because we try to have diplomatic relations with both India and Pakistan, it doesn't mean we give a shit one way of the other about a mountain range between the two. There is no geopolitical or strategic importance there for us to care about.


As said before, Taliban and Iraqi insurgents hid among civilians and that's what made them difficult to kill. Militarily we could have just flattened the *censored*ing place WWII style and said, "done," but we were trying to pay some attention to international law. Equally many key targets were left off the menu during the Vietnam War due to the immaturity of guided weapon technology. North Korea poses a risk to South Korea if it was attacked and there is also the possibility of the war spreading. If however he fires one ICBM our way you will see it turned into the largest fire in human history.



Err, yes it did.
US forces helping Philippines battle ISIS-linked fighters - CNN


Nah, it's really a very simple system. A government is elected by the people in an election approved by UN observers. India manages it. Dude, it already is another Iraq, the civil war started in 2011. At first people thought Assad might be the best option to stop that, but 7 years later you just have to admit that theory was a load of shit, just as in 2010 people had to admit that the post-war planning in Iraq was a clusterfuck.


Get down from yours, nit-picking Western policy is just a Russian and Chinese-inspired way of supporting some of the worst regimes on the planet, whilst at the same time supporting their own goals.

 

[Aravind]

We conduct strikes against Assad because he uses Sarin and Chlorine gas against legitimate opposition forces, who are also fighting against ISIS.

You used Agent Orange against Vietnam, Nuked Japan , bombed Iraq,Libya What makes you so concerned about Chemical weapons when you hold large stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons yourself.
There is no proof that Assad used Chemical weapons.

Well what is a law if nobody enforces it?
Saddam Hussein's Violations of the Geneva Convention

Geneva Convention , its a joke, You violated it many times and get preachy about Human rights. You invaded his country, You are not a watchdog of the world, nobody made you that.

Politics made Vietnam difficult, with an unrestricted menu of targets it would have been a doddle. No troops were in Libya. With Iraq and Afghanistan there was no real military opposition whatsoever, just cucks hiding among civilians and pretending to be civilians. It's also more difficult to win any game if you are largely playing by the rules and the other side isn't/

Yep It was Politics, when your soldiers return in a unending stream of body bags made you want to get out of it Asap.
Vietnam was your nightmare, just like Afghanistan was.
Welcome to Urban warfare, that is how wars are fought.
You don't set rules, in war there are no rules.

More half-baked non-factual garbage.
Killing of Ravindra Mhatre - Wikipedia

Your
MI6, scotland Yard knew about it but let UK citizens kill the Diplomat.

The BBC, like many news channels, is everywhere. Your head is filled with garbage. Just because we try to have diplomatic relations with both India and Pakistan, it doesn't mean we give a shit one way of the other about a mountain range between the two. There is no geopolitical or strategic importance there for us to care about.

The BBC and your News outlet have a special Section only for India. Don't beat yourself over it.
Yeah is that why you are so worried about Kashmir situation that you get panel discussions over it in your TV shows.
Frankly, speaking we won't mind you not having diplomatic relations at all.

As said before, Taliban and Iraqi insurgents hid among civilians and that's what made them difficult to kill. Militarily we could have just flattened the *censored*ing place WWII style and said, "done," but we were trying to pay some attention to international law. Equally many key targets were left off the menu during the Vietnam War due to the immaturity of guided weapon technology. North Korea poses a risk to South Korea if it was attacked and there is also the possibility of the war spreading. If however he fires one ICBM our way you will see it turned into the largest fire in human history.

Yeah, Yeah always the excuses, You think You will flatten places and people would just sit quietly? Even USSR tried flattening it but ended up broken itself, Vietnam was napalmed, but you ran with tail tucked behind.
North Korea threatens daily to Nuke you. All you can do is sit and be get shocked at his threats.

Err, yes it did.
US forces helping Philippines battle ISIS-linked fighters - CNN

Yeah Right, is that why Obama was called son of wh*re and asked USA to remove its Army bases from his country for supplying drugs , which indirectly financed ISIS.

Nah, it's really a very simple system. A government is elected by the people in an election approved by UN observers. India manages it. Dude, it already is another Iraq, the civil war started in 2011. At first people thought Assad might be the best option to stop that, but 7 years later you just have to admit that theory was a load of shit, just as in 2010 people had to admit that the post-war planning in Iraq was a clusterfuck

UN is a paper tiger, at best it is a stooge of USA as it gets funds to party and live in USA.
Assad is what stablilizes that country, Uncle Trump himself said it during Elections. You are now trying to remove him and then came Russia. BTW, Nobody asked you to do bombing runs in Syria, it is not your home to worry about nor your Neighbor.

Get down from yours, nit-picking Western policy is just a Russian and Chinese-inspired way of supporting some of the worst regimes on the planet, whilst at the same time supporting their own goals.

Western Policy is one of Loot and War.
You support one of the worst dictators,regimes as long as they cut deals with you.
Nobody asks you do intervene or worry about things far away from home.Let the people of that country deal with it.

 

[BMD]

I want to ask you view/comment

You did talk about evil regimes of Saddam etc, and how it was right to punish them, ok
Let us go back to 1971 war between India and Pakistan, There was a genocide being done by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh (Americand and the British knew this, their records show that)
India was involved in taking on Bangladesh, then India was a democracy, Pakistan was a dictatorship
And yet the British and the Americans ganged up and wanted to enter and threaten the Indian forces in support of the Pakistani forces.

Please do explain this point to me. The supporters of the Democracy,, the Yanks and Brits ganging up against a Democratic country which is trying to save a country from Genocide... and clearly the two countries showed support for Dictator led pakistan conducting genocide.

Your export comments please

They supported India against China though. The US naval presence was not to interfere with India, it's intention was to stop to deter the USSR from intervening in Pakistan. India misread it. And if you look at the Soviet invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, it was a very real possibility.
Task Force 74 - Wikipedia

You should also ask your why, if Saddam was backed by the US, were all his weapons Soviet?

 

[BMD]

You used Agent Orange against Vietnam, Nuked Japan , bombed Iraq,Libya What makes you so concerned about Chemical weapons when you hold large stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons yourself.
There is no proof that Assad used Chemical weapons.


Geneva Convention , its a joke, You violated it many times and get preachy about Human rights. You invaded his country, You are not a watchdog of the world, nobody made you that.

Yep It was Politics, when your soldiers return in a unending stream of body bags made you want to get out of it Asap.
Vietnam was your nightmare, just like Afghanistan was.
Welcome to Urban warfare, that is how wars are fought.
You don't set rules, in war there are no rules.

Your
MI6, scotland Yard knew about it but let UK citizens kill the Diplomat.




The BBC and your News outlet have a special Section only for India. Don't beat yourself over it.
Yeah is that why you are so worried about Kashmir situation that you get panel discussions over it in your TV shows.
Frankly, speaking we won't mind you not having diplomatic relations at all.

Yeah, Yeah always the excuses, You think You will flatten places and people would just sit quietly? Even USSR tried flattening it but ended up broken itself, Vietnam was napalmed, but you ran with tail tucked behind.
North Korea threatens daily to Nuke you. All you can do is sit and be get shocked at his threats.


Yeah Right, is that why Obama was called son of wh*re and asked USA to remove its Army bases from his country for supplying drugs , which indirectly financed ISIS.


UN is a paper tiger, at best it is a stooge of USA as it gets funds to party and live in USA.
Assad is what stablilizes that country, Uncle Trump himself said it during Elections. You are now trying to remove him and then came Russia. BTW, Nobody asked you to do bombing runs in Syria, it is not your home to worry about nor your Neighbor.


Western Policy is one of Loot and War.
You support one of the worst dictators,regimes as long as they cut deals with you.
Nobody asks you do intervene or worry about things far away from home.Let the people of that country deal with it.

Agent orange was to get rid of trees, it's a defoliant. It had unforeseen consequences. If they'd wanted to use chemical weapons, they had VX at the time, which is far more potent.

You'll find he invaded Kuwait and the war in 1991 had UN approval. The USSR and China abstained. It's then that he should have been removed when it had backing, rather than crucifying his people under sanctions in an attempt to keep him in check for another 12 years.

No, it was politics that prevented them from hitting the necessary targets in Hanoi. They fought Vietnam with both hands tied behind their backs and still inflicted a much higher body count winning every battle.

Actually there are rules, that's what the Geneva Convention is for. Without them North Vietnam could simply have been melted for an easy win. And it's not 'Urban Warfare'. Dressing up as civilians and hiding behind civilians is terrorism and against International Law. Otherwise one could describe Kashmiri separatists as legal combatants right? Careful not to trip yourself up whilst re-spinning RT and Sputnik BS.

Any proof of that, or just another wild accusation? MI5/6 were probably pre-occupied with the Cold War at the time. Kashmir issues would be nowhere near the top of their agenda.

On our TV shows in the UK? Please give me a link.

Empty threats, let's wait until fatty actually tries nuke us and see what happens. You'll probably be able to see the flashes from India since we'll be taking out their larger benefactors at the same time.

Osama was dead before ISIS started and please prove your accusations rather than making random allegations. ISIS was most likely funded by nations who are against democracy in the region. Al-Quaeda was certainly aided by Iran.

That's why the US, UK and France have to act as its teeth. Without us, they would just sit and talk all day and let anything happen in the world.

Loot? Have you any idea how much money was spent on rebuilding Iraq and how much we give away in foreign aid?

 

[BlackOpsIndia]

There is no geopolitical or strategic importance there for us to care about.

That's true, Britain don't really have the clout to project power or find strategic partners beyond the immediate neighborhood.

Its more of a case of we can't afford to be involved than we don't want it. The max Britain can do is to provide asylum to criminals from all over the world to feel relevant in the cacophony of calls to revolution.

US naval presence was not to interfere with India, it's intention was to stop to deter the USSR from intervening in Pakistan. India misread it.

By any chance is it possible you are of Pakistani origin? That's the only part of world where are I find different history but strangely even Pakistani don't claim this.

Any reference for this interesting new history? So far all the unclassified documents, quotes, books from people as high NSA of USA of that time indicate something different but let's not get into that. Just curious where did you find this gem?

This spin can make you very highly paid journalist in India. Please NDTV staff if you are reading this, this is the man.

 

[smestarz]

There are cables (leaked of course) where the yank President is trying to convince the Chinese to attack India (a democracy) in support of Pakistan (Dictatorship) , so to yanks and brits its just means to an end.
Saddam was already supported by USSR. The Americans had installed Shah in Iran and also gave him F-14A which were then one of the worlds best and expensive fighter planes which USA had not even given to any of their allies. It carried the vaunted AIM-54 Phoenix missile that could take down an enemy plane before it even knew it was there. But unfortunately in Mid 70s there was protest in Iran against the Shah and he was deposed by Khomeini, The trigger happy Americans could not stand their puppet being overthrown by the people, so the Americans then put their weight behind the Iraqis to try and destroy Iran which has "disobeyed them"
I guess I would be right, no?

The same Saddam when he tried to unite Kuwait with Iraq was first beaten and then deposed by successive gulf wars, To the Americans its all means to an end, and that is WHY, no other reason.

They supported India against China though. The US naval presence was not to interfere with India, it's intention was to stop to deter the USSR from intervening in Pakistan. India misread it. And if you look at the Soviet invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, it was a very real possibility.
Task Force 74 - Wikipedia

You should also ask your why, if Saddam was backed by the US, were all his weapons Soviet?

 

[smestarz]

The Leaked cables all inform to the contarary, You really have no clue about the leaked CIA letters do you?

The US Naval presence including Carrier force was to interfere and if possible to attack Indian forces in Bangladesh to then let Pakistan have control (and possibly continue its genocide) The Soviets had sent Submarines to intervene, Soviets would be the first to use submarines to intervene on land, would it not? Also the Americans would the first to take on submarines by using Carrier and aslo Marine Expeditionary force. BTW the Soviet submarines blocked the American fleet and it was not the other way round..
We did not miss it, its just that you were caught with your hands in the proverbial kitty

They supported India against China though. The US naval presence was not to interfere with India, it's intention was to stop to deter the USSR from intervening in Pakistan. India misread it. And if you look at the Soviet invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, it was a very real possibility.
Task Force 74 - Wikipedia

You should also ask your why, if Saddam was backed by the US, were all his weapons Soviet?

 

[smestarz]

What rebuilding? Who told you to attack Iraq in first plane and demand a regime change? If going by those rules, America should be destroyed thousand times over. BTW alll the utilities in Iraq are controlled by West and not iraqis. Also oil is being used to pay for these utlities,
Thus you destroy infrastructure of a country, you then instal one and you ensure that its priced high and they have to pay with the OIL and this is the loot part which you did not understand.
You start to sound more like RaGa now...

That's true, Britain don't really have the clout to project power or find strategic partners beyond the immediate neighborhood.

Its more of a case of we can't afford to be involved than we don't want it. The max Britain can do is to provide asylum to criminals from all over the world to feel relevant in the cacophony of calls to revolution.


By any chance is it possible you are of Pakistani origin? That's the only part of world where are I find different history but strangely even Pakistani don't claim this.

Any reference for this interesting new history? So far all the unclassified documents, quotes, books from people as high NSA of USA of that time indicate something different but let's not get into that. Just curious where did you find this gem?

This spin can make you very highly paid journalist in India. Please NDTV staff if you are reading this, this is the man.

Agent orange was to get rid of trees, it's a defoliant. It had unforeseen consequences. If they'd wanted to use chemical weapons, they had VX at the time, which is far more potent.

You'll find he invaded Kuwait and the war in 1991 had UN approval. The USSR and China abstained. It's then that he should have been removed when it had backing, rather than crucifying his people under sanctions in an attempt to keep him in check for another 12 years.

No, it was politics that prevented them from hitting the necessary targets in Hanoi. They fought Vietnam with both hands tied behind their backs and still inflicted a much higher body count winning every battle.

Actually there are rules, that's what the Geneva Convention is for. Without them North Vietnam could simply have been melted for an easy win. And it's not 'Urban Warfare'. Dressing up as civilians and hiding behind civilians is terrorism and against International Law. Otherwise one could describe Kashmiri separatists as legal combatants right? Careful not to trip yourself up whilst re-spinning RT and Sputnik BS.

Any proof of that, or just another wild accusation? MI5/6 were probably pre-occupied with the Cold War at the time. Kashmir issues would be nowhere near the top of their agenda.

On our TV shows in the UK? Please give me a link.

Empty threats, let's wait until fatty actually tries nuke us and see what happens. You'll probably be able to see the flashes from India since we'll be taking out their larger benefactors at the same time.

Osama was dead before ISIS started and please prove your accusations rather than making random allegations. ISIS was most likely funded by nations who are against democracy in the region. Al-Quaeda was certainly aided by Iran.

That's why the US, UK and France have to act as its teeth. Without us, they would just sit and talk all day and let anything happen in the world.

Loot? Have you any idea how much money was spent on rebuilding Iraq and how much we give away in foreign aid?

 

[_Anonymous_]

By any chance is it possible you are of Pakistani origin?

You're not going to believe this one but here goes - he's Irish . And that's where most of the problems arise , in the first place. As per him , the Irish fight for independence was a totally futile endeavour & the British rule of India was mostly a benign affair conducted over high tea and cucumber sandwiches. That's only the beginning . For more execrable details our good friend @Amal may oblige .

 

[BMD]

What rebuilding? Who told you to attack Iraq in first plane and demand a regime change? If going by those rules, America should be destroyed thousand times over. BTW alll the utilities in Iraq are controlled by West and not iraqis. Also oil is being used to pay for these utlities,
Thus you destroy infrastructure of a country, you then instal one and you ensure that its priced high and they have to pay with the OIL and this is the loot part which you did not understand.
You start to sound more like RaGa now...

Well, the 'first place' was January 1991 and the UN did and there was considerable support for removing him then.

$138bn worth of rebuilding as of 2013.

Oil is traded on the global market.

 

[BMD]

The Leaked cables all inform to the contarary, You really have no clue about the leaked CIA letters do you?

The US Naval presence including Carrier force was to interfere and if possible to attack Indian forces in Bangladesh to then let Pakistan have control (and possibly continue its genocide) The Soviets had sent Submarines to intervene, Soviets would be the first to use submarines to intervene on land, would it not? Also the Americans would the first to take on submarines by using Carrier and aslo Marine Expeditionary force. BTW the Soviet submarines blocked the American fleet and it was not the other way round..
We did not miss it, its just that you were caught with your hands in the proverbial kitty

Garbage. A humanitarian intervention by the Soviets? You might not have noticed but the border of the USSR was right next to Pakistan.

The Soviets didn't block jack because the US wasn't there to intervene unless the Soviets did. You've been lied to. The US was already heavily involved in Vietnam at the time, with considerable political opposition, the idea they were going to deliberately involve themselves in the Indo-Pak dispute at the same time is retarded.

 

[BMD]

There are cables (leaked of course) where the yank President is trying to convince the Chinese to attack India (a democracy) in support of Pakistan (Dictatorship) , so to yanks and brits its just means to an end.
Saddam was already supported by USSR. The Americans had installed Shah in Iran and also gave him F-14A which were then one of the worlds best and expensive fighter planes which USA had not even given to any of their allies. It carried the vaunted AIM-54 Phoenix missile that could take down an enemy plane before it even knew it was there. But unfortunately in Mid 70s there was protest in Iran against the Shah and he was deposed by Khomeini, The trigger happy Americans could not stand their puppet being overthrown by the people, so the Americans then put their weight behind the Iraqis to try and destroy Iran which has "disobeyed them"
I guess I would be right, no?

The same Saddam when he tried to unite Kuwait with Iraq was first beaten and then deposed by successive gulf wars, To the Americans its all means to an end, and that is WHY, no other reason.

Wow, that's a pretty big leap of BS right there. At the same time as the Chinese were funding Communist guerrillas against the US in Vietnam and Cambodia, the US was trying to convince them to do their bidding. The US also backed India in all wars they had with the Chinese. You couldn't make this crap up.

Leaked cables? Yeah, probably faked and the leaked by the USSR, you gullible clowns.

Fortunately? Not for women's rights in Iran. Nothing fortunate about it.

Invaded Kuwait now equals 'tried to unite Kuwait with Iraq.' I suppose Hitler was just trying to unite Europe and Africa? And Pakistan is just trying to unite Kashmir? And you complain about the BBC's choice of words.

 

[BMD]

That's true, Britain don't really have the clout to project power or find strategic partners beyond the immediate neighborhood.

Its more of a case of we can't afford to be involved than we don't want it. The max Britain can do is to provide asylum to criminals from all over the world to feel relevant in the cacophony of calls to revolution.


By any chance is it possible you are of Pakistani origin? That's the only part of world where are I find different history but strangely even Pakistani don't claim this.

Any reference for this interesting new history? So far all the unclassified documents, quotes, books from people as high NSA of USA of that time indicate something different but let's not get into that. Just curious where did you find this gem?

This spin can make you very highly paid journalist in India. Please NDTV staff if you are reading this, this is the man.

We already have a considerable amount of bases in the region anyway. And in far less dangerous spots.
Where are the world's major military bases?

It's more a case of 'what would Britain do with a land-locked' base?

That's more the EU that's doing that because they're retarded.

Nope, parents are from Ireland (one Northern, one Republic).

Sources

• Rais, R.B (1987), The Indian Ocean and the Superpowers, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0-389-20695-4.

I think some of the spin being peddled by others is extremely impressive, especially the trying to get China to attack India part.