Turkish lawmakers switch parties in challenge to Erdogan

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

Don't know what spin you are talking about but China attacking India is a reality and China is aggressor, not saying that as an Indian but a fact.

In Sino Indian war India is better poised to defend itself purely because of topography and China won't be able capture anything significant even with Pakistan attacking India simultaneously. This is no spin but more of reality. China do have tactical advantage at a few places in this 4000 km long border but strategic advantage lies with India in case of defending (not attacking).
 
Don't know what spin you are talking about but China attacking India is a reality and China is aggressor, not saying that as an Indian but a fact.

In Sino Indian war India is better poised to defend itself purely because of topography and China won't be able capture anything significant even with Pakistan attacking India simultaneously. This is no spin but more of reality. China do have tactical advantage at a few places in this 4000 km long border but strategic advantage lies with India in case of defending (not attacking).
Yes but the idea that the US was somehow trying to get China to do that in 1971, when China was actively supporting Communist forces in Vietnam and Cambodia against the US, is garbage only RT and Sputnik could make up. The US has backed India in every war against China. Pakistan was more complicated because Pakistan was a NATO-aligned country, India was not.

i hope you're right.
 
Yes but the idea that the US was somehow trying to get China to do that in 1971, when China was actively supporting Communist forces in Vietnam and Cambodia against the US, is garbage only RT and Sputnik could make up. The US has backed India in every war against China. Pakistan was more complicated because Pakistan was a NATO-aligned country, India was not.

i hope you're right.
Remember what did I tell you about simple people with simplistic mindsets from pre dominantly agricultural countries engaging in such complex matters as geostrategic affairs which unlike math never provides definite and certain results to such simple sums like 2+2.

Now all this must be bewildering to the Irish , which is precisely why The Art Of War , Arthashastra or The Prince wasn't authored by an Irishman and never will be .

Now , restrict yourself to the Music thread or post your favourite recipe or articles on arms and armaments which follows the laws of physics / chemistry - something that you like some Irishmen are conversant with.


P.S - You may want to search online w.r.t Nixon and Kissinger's role in the Bangladesh war .
 
Yes but the idea that the US was somehow trying to get China to do that in 1971, when China was actively supporting Communist forces in Vietnam and Cambodia against the US, is garbage only RT and Sputnik could make up. The US has backed India in every war against China. Pakistan was more complicated because Pakistan was a NATO-aligned country, India was not.

i hope you're right.
US was frustrated that China is not putting pressure against India, irrespective of what you read these are the facts. President Nixon violated aid rules to assist Pakistan via third countries like Iran and didn't even kept own cabinet or even the ambassador in loop.

The hatred against India of President Nixon and his handler NSA Kissinger was so high that they established relations with China. President Nixon himself called Chinese to attack India or at the very least start mobilizing troops on Indian border and start exercises to rattle India.

When China did nothing Nixon himself visited Chinese Ambassador instead of calling him and showed him top secret documents just to build trust that US trusts them. This baffled even Chinese that what the fu¢k is this clown doing! Maybe this desperation made Chinese skeptical of attacking India. There were multiple things that could have landed him in jail but thankfully he got a bigger domestic scandal to divert attention before this could become an issue.

If you think Trump and Bolton are stupid and dumb, Nixon and Kissinger were Trump on steroids. They kept bypassing own ambassadors so as not to reveal why US is attacking a democratic country India. It was not fault of US or even the US administration of that time but these two people going nut crazy.

When everything failed they ordered 7th fleet to sail and put pressure on India. It was not very well thought out move and later even he himself said that he never thought he would attack India or maybe he will it depend upon situation but he will be crucified domestically. Isn't it very Trumpish? Trust me Trump still has alot of ground to cover before he become Nixsinger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aravind
Remember what did I tell you about simple people with simplistic mindsets from pre dominantly agricultural countries engaging in such complex matters as geostrategic affairs which unlike math never provides definite and certain results to such simple sums like 2+2.

Now all this must be bewildering to the Irish , which is precisely why The Art Of War , Arthashastra or The Prince wasn't authored by an Irishman and never will be .

Now , restrict yourself to the Music thread or post your favourite recipe or articles on arms and armaments which follows the laws of physics / chemistry - something that you like some Irishmen are conversant with.


P.S - You may want to search online w.r.t Nixon and Kissinger's role in the Bangladesh war .
You may want to read about India sponsoring a Bangali insurgency in East Pakistan. So using your logic of blaming the US for militant groups fighting each other after Saddam, are you not responsible for what followed in Bangladesh? You blame us for what Muslim terrorists do after the removal of a dictatorship, so this your own logic puts the blame on you.

'Predomintantly agricultural' countries that had a far high GDP/capita than India.
 
Last edited:
US was frustrated that China is not putting pressure against India, irrespective of what you read these are the facts. President Nixon violated aid rules to assist Pakistan via third countries like Iran and didn't even kept own cabinet or even the ambassador in loop.

The hatred against India of President Nixon and his handler NSA Kissinger was so high that they established relations with China. President Nixon himself called Chinese to attack India or at the very least start mobilizing troops on Indian border and start exercises to rattle India.

When China did nothing Nixon himself visited Chinese Ambassador instead of calling him and showed him top secret documents just to build trust that US trusts them. This baffled even Chinese that what the fu¢k is this clown doing! Maybe this desperation made Chinese skeptical of attacking India. There were multiple things that could have landed him in jail but thankfully he got a bigger domestic scandal to divert attention before this could become an issue.

If you think Trump and Bolton are stupid and dumb, Nixon and Kissinger were Trump on steroids. They kept bypassing own ambassadors so as not to reveal why US is attacking a democratic country India. It was not fault of US or even the US administration of that time but these two people going nut crazy.

When everything failed they ordered 7th fleet to sail and put pressure on India. It was not very well thought out move and later even he himself said that he never thought he would attack India or maybe he will it depend upon situation but he will be crucified domestically. Isn't it very Trumpish? Trust me Trump still has alot of ground to cover before he become Nixsinger.
All whilst fighting forces backed by them in Vietnam? Discussions with China at the time were actually about the spread of Marxism over Maoism in Cambodia. And China eventually opposed Soviet-backed forces in Cambodia. The rest is stuff the USSR made up because they were annoyed about this. Kissinger and Nixon's real crimes were co-supporting the Khmer Rouge with China without realising how bad they were. But the NVA weren't much better either.
 
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?
You used Agent Orange a Carcinogenic, Mutagenic substance against Civilians , if that is not Chem/Bio warfare, then what is?
VX has a shorter range. If you used VX then all your Human Rights posturing would have been a facade and whole of Asia would have turned against you. You didn't want more Countries against you in Cold war.

He waged war for 10 years against Iran, You were cool as a cucumber, when he gassed Iran and Kurds, why because he was selling oil to you. You got involved due to kuwait is just a lie, NATO got involved as Soviet Union fell in 1989, You had no one to oppose your Invasion. Who exactly are you to judge or help him or his people? You just wanted oil, Human Rights is just a ruse for you.

The was politics yes, You got both hands tied? a great joke, you lost people steadily and back home people were angry over dead soldiers.

Geneva Convention is a joke, You did many black ops, had tried assasinations, Guantanamo bay are some where Geneva Convention rules didn't apply for you. You couldn't move against North Vietnam, it was a quagmire, so you had to retreat. Kashmir Problem Intensified in1990 it had covert support of NATO. You supported Pakistan over Kashmir, even wanted to Nuke India in 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war, your Carrier groups retreated as they saw Soviet Subs.

You look over your Newspapers it has a special section , search on youtube for your TV panel discussions, You can type can you not?

Why don't you call his bluff and go ahead by attacking him? You won't
Truth is you never fought a war against a Nuclear armed country, forget Nukes, You never fought a big country in war, Only when the odds were heavily stacked in favor of you, did you go for Conventional war with small countries which don't have the capability to hit your homes.You fear such scenario, therefore you avoid force,despite open threats against you.

Wikileaks,Snowden proved a lot, NATO was supporting free Syrian Army and Ansar, which later morphed into ISIS, You are still supporting them now, by conducting Air strikes against Assad and helping ISIS make inroads. Don't take other countries as fools to not know what you are doing there.

Those teeth are decaying. That is why those teeth are blunted against South China Sea occupation by China.

You fired a Trillion Dollars worth of Ammunition over Iraq, did you spend a Trillion to rebuild it?
You were unopposed to loot Iraq's Oil for over past 15 years, so it more than made up for your aid or what you spent.
When i say Invade, Loot that is exactly what you do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amal and Bali78
All whilst fighting forces backed by them in Vietnam? Discussions with China at the time were actually about the spread of Marxism over Maoism in Cambodia. And China eventually opposed Soviet-backed forces in Cambodia. The rest is stuff the USSR made up because they were annoyed about this. Kissinger and Nixon's real crimes were co-supporting the Khmer Rouge with China without realising how bad they were. But the NVA weren't much better either.

You can deny everything calling it Russian propaganda and live in denial all you want heck there is a country in our neighborhood where millions live in denial and alternative reality it doesn't change the facts or reality.
 
Its carcinogenic properties weren't known at the time. It was a defoliant to remove tree cover.

Who put the Ayatollahs in power in Iran? The USSR.

Iraqi invaded Kuwait in August 1990. The action was condemned by the UN and defences were moved into Saudi Arabia. 5 months of negotiations then took place to try and get Iraq to leave without a war. In January 1991 these failed and a deadline was issued by the Allies and the UN. Upon the deadline passing, the 4th largest military in the world (larger than India) was decimated in 6 weeks with almost no allied casualties.

They never attacked key targets in Hanoi that could have crippled the NVA war machine simply due to concerns over civilian casualties.

Oh sure and Fidel Castro was a great person.
Fidel Castro's greatest atrocities and crimes - Introduction | Babalú Blog

You spend a lot of time making excuses for the world's worst regimes, it's little wonder we find you in a thread about Erdogan.

I watch the news here every day and I can't remember the last time Kashmir was mentioned. Even Myanmar has only come up only a few times.

Err... I think you'll find we did find North Korea and China, along with many Soviet pilots in a war there in 1949 when they tried invade the democratic South Korea. They ended up losing territory and suffering a massive body count. Then there two other little know wars known as WWI and WWII.

The FSA did not morph into ISIS. ISIS was a separate entity most likely backed by Qatar. The FSA are still fighting ISIS now.

Nope, oil was sold on the open market. Too much RT and Sputnik.
 
You can deny everything calling it Russian propaganda and live in denial all you want heck there is a country in our neighborhood where millions live in denial and alternative reality it doesn't change the facts or reality.
What you regard as facts are garbage.

Meanwhile:

Soviet backed invasion of South Korea (1949),
Soviet-backed takeover of Cuba (1953),
Soviet invasion of Hungary (1956),
Soviet-backed invasion of South Vietnam (1965),
Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968),
Soviet-backed invasion of Cambodia (1977),
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1989),
Russian invasion of Georgia (2008),
Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014),
Russian invasion of Syria at behest of Russian-backed dictator (2015).

Cuba itself then went on to support communist takeovers of many other countries (Angola, Algeria, Ghana, Nicaragua, Yemen).

So in the same time period the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to institute a democratic process, Russian has invaded 2 democratic countries (Georgia and Ukraine) and invaded a third country to oppose democracy. Not to mention flattening an entire city in their own country to get rid of insurgents.
 
Last edited:
@BMD

The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971
  • Henry Kissinger's duplicity to the press and toward the Indians vis-à-vis the Chinese. In July of 1971, while Kissinger was in India, he told Indian officials that "under any conceivable circumstance the U.S. would back India against any Chinese pressures." In that same July meeting Kissinger said, "In any dialogue with China, we would of course not encourage her against India." However, near the end of the India-Pakistan war, in a highly secret 12/10/1971 meeting with the Chinese Ambassador to the UN Huang Ha, Kissinger did exactly this encouraging the PRC to engage in the equivalent of military action against the Indians. [Documents 14-15, 30-32]
Document 32
Event Summary by George H.W. Bush, December 10, 1971, 7 pp.
Source: George Bush Presidential Library. George H.W. Bush Collection. Series: United Nations File, 1971-1972, Box 4.

UN Ambassador Bush describes the December 10 meeting between Kissinger and the Chinese delegation to the United Nations. While discussing the India-Pakistan crisis, Kissinger reveals that the American position on the issue was parallel to that of the Chinese. Kissinger disclosed that the U.S. would be moving some ships into the area, and also that military aid was being sent from Jordan, Turkey, and Iran. Some of this aid was illegally transferred because it was American in origin. Bush also reports that Kissinger gives his tacit approval for China to provide militarily support for Pakistani operations against India. Bush expresses his personal doubts in the administration's "Two State Departments thing," and takes issue with Kissinger's style, in one instance calling him paranoid and arrogant.​

Document 33
NSC List, Courses of Actions Associated with India/Pakistan Crisis, Top Secret/Sensistive, December 8, 1971, 2 pp.
Source: NPMP, Country Files: Middle East, Box 643.

Possible American courses of action with regards to the India/Pakistan crisis included notification to China that the U.S. would "look with favor on steps taken" by Beijing to "demonstrate its determination to intervene by force if necessary to preserve the territorial integrity of West Pakistan to include subtle assurance the Government of the United States will not stand by should the Soviet Union launch attacks against the PRC."

Document 35
Defense Intelligence Agency Intelligence Appraisal, Communist China's Capability to Support Pakistan, Secret, December 9, 1971, 3 pp.
Source: NPMP, NSC Files, Indo-Pak War, Box 572.

The DIA assesses the limits and possibility of Chinese support to the Pakistanis. It opines that while Chinese support will be limited to political, diplomatic, and propaganda for the time being, the PRC could initiate small attacks in the high mountainous areas in the East, and therefore occupy Indian troops without "provoking Soviet retaliatory moves."

Truth of US and PRC role in 1971 Bangladesh war of Liberation
 
What you regard as facts are garbage

As I said there is no harm in living in denial, millions near us live like that, we are habitual of dealing with them. You seems to have confused me with some kind of Russian backer and West hater by the examples you quoted which is never the case and the sheer banality of Russia did this we did only this is waste of time which I am not interested, you can sell this on Twitter, you will find many people readily available to believe anything you say, but here not so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aravind
You may want to read about India sponsoring a Bangali insurgency in East Pakistan. So using your logic of blaming the US for militant groups fighting each other after Saddam, are you not responsible for what followed in Bangladesh? You blame us for what Muslim terrorists do after the removal of a dictatorship, so this your own logic puts the blame on you.



'Predomintantly agricultural' countries that had a far high GDP/capita than India.

And in what way did those Bengali freedom fighters morph into terrorists ? When you invaded Iraq , you displaced a regime without considering an alternative thus creating a power vaccum - a cardinal error in international politics particularly in such a nation as Iraq having such faultlines as it does. Something both - Bush Sr & Clinton were wise enough to factor into their calculations but which Bush Jr & his gf Tony the poodle couldn't fathom .


I think we've had this discussion earlier too . What's the GDP nominal of the Agricultural Republic of Ireland ? Who's the richest citizen of Ireland ? Why haven't the top 3-4 richest citizens made their fortune within Ireland if it's the land of milk , honey & opportunity as you claim it to be ? Worse , they aren't even inhabitants of Ireland but naturalised citizens who spend a few months on their farm there watching cows moo and horses graze .Explain that !!
 
And in what way did those Bengali freedom fighters morph into terrorists ? When you invaded Iraq , you displaced a regime without considering an alternative thus creating a power vaccum - a cardinal error in international politics particularly in such a nation as Iraq having such faultlines as it does. Something both - Bush Sr & Clinton were wise enough to factor into their calculations but which Bush Jr & his gf Tony the poodle couldn't fathom .


I think we've had this discussion earlier too . What's the GDP nominal of the Agricultural Republic of Ireland ? Who's the richest citizen of Ireland ? Why haven't the top 3-4 richest citizens made their fortune within Ireland if it's the land of milk , honey & opportunity as you claim it to be ? Worse , they aren't even inhabitants of Ireland but naturalised citizens who spend a few months on their farm there watching cows moo and horses graze .Explain that !!
When you sponsor insurgents in another country that can be perceived either way.

When we removed Saddam, Ahmedinejad helpfully supported Al-Quaeda in Iraq. Chinese MANPADS were also found in their possession in Iraq and Afghanistan. So maybe the 'clusterfuck' we got blamed for was heavily influenced by other parties.

GDP/Capita indicated productivity per head and that of ROI now stands at a remarkable $80+k, vs $2k for India.
 
As I said there is no harm in living in denial, millions near us live like that, we are habitual of dealing with them. You seems to have confused me with some kind of Russian backer and West hater by the examples you quoted which is never the case and the shear banality of Russia did this we did only this is waste of time which I am not interested, you can sell this on Twitter, you will find many people readily available to believe anything you say, but here not so much.
arnold-schwarzenegger-commando-wrong-headshot-gun-1373105325a.gif
 
@BMD

The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971
  • Henry Kissinger's duplicity to the press and toward the Indians vis-à-vis the Chinese. In July of 1971, while Kissinger was in India, he told Indian officials that "under any conceivable circumstance the U.S. would back India against any Chinese pressures." In that same July meeting Kissinger said, "In any dialogue with China, we would of course not encourage her against India." However, near the end of the India-Pakistan war, in a highly secret 12/10/1971 meeting with the Chinese Ambassador to the UN Huang Ha, Kissinger did exactly this encouraging the PRC to engage in the equivalent of military action against the Indians. [Documents 14-15, 30-32]
Document 32
Event Summary by George H.W. Bush, December 10, 1971, 7 pp.
Source: George Bush Presidential Library. George H.W. Bush Collection. Series: United Nations File, 1971-1972, Box 4.

UN Ambassador Bush describes the December 10 meeting between Kissinger and the Chinese delegation to the United Nations. While discussing the India-Pakistan crisis, Kissinger reveals that the American position on the issue was parallel to that of the Chinese. Kissinger disclosed that the U.S. would be moving some ships into the area, and also that military aid was being sent from Jordan, Turkey, and Iran. Some of this aid was illegally transferred because it was American in origin. Bush also reports that Kissinger gives his tacit approval for China to provide militarily support for Pakistani operations against India. Bush expresses his personal doubts in the administration's "Two State Departments thing," and takes issue with Kissinger's style, in one instance calling him paranoid and arrogant.​

Document 33
NSC List, Courses of Actions Associated with India/Pakistan Crisis, Top Secret/Sensistive, December 8, 1971, 2 pp.
Source: NPMP, Country Files: Middle East, Box 643.

Possible American courses of action with regards to the India/Pakistan crisis included notification to China that the U.S. would "look with favor on steps taken" by Beijing to "demonstrate its determination to intervene by force if necessary to preserve the territorial integrity of West Pakistan to include subtle assurance the Government of the United States will not stand by should the Soviet Union launch attacks against the PRC."

Document 35
Defense Intelligence Agency Intelligence Appraisal, Communist China's Capability to Support Pakistan, Secret, December 9, 1971, 3 pp.
Source: NPMP, NSC Files, Indo-Pak War, Box 572.

The DIA assesses the limits and possibility of Chinese support to the Pakistanis. It opines that while Chinese support will be limited to political, diplomatic, and propaganda for the time being, the PRC could initiate small attacks in the high mountainous areas in the East, and therefore occupy Indian troops without "provoking Soviet retaliatory moves."

Truth of US and PRC role in 1971 Bangladesh war of Liberation
Oh wow, Top Secret documents just happened to get leaked.:LOL:

Isn't it amazing how you choose to dissect one small period of history and ignore countless invasions and insurgencies either by or backed by Russia/Soviet Union? And you might also consider that the territory in question was in fact East Pakistan and therefore maybe India were the aggressors, much as I have no great affinity for Pakistan.

 
When you sponsor insurgents in another country that can be perceived either way.

I'm referring to facts on the ground not perceptions . Please demonstrate in what way did those Bengali freedom fighters go on to terrorize the neighbourhood or the West.
When we removed Saddam, Ahmedinejad helpfully supported Al-Quaeda in Iraq. Chinese MANPADS were also found in their possession in Iraq and Afghanistan. So maybe the 'clusterfuck' we got blamed for was heavily influenced by other parties.

You went to Iraq on the pretext that SH was developing N Weapons . There is ample literature on the net to demonstrate this was lie even before the invasion began . Subsequent to the invasion, there's not a shred of evidence to indicate that Iraq had a NWP. Now , we've an Irish apologist proffering fanciful excuses like MANPADS to justify the invasion . Are they classified as WMD's ?
GDP/Capita indicated productivity per head and that of ROI now stands at a remarkable $80+k, vs $2k for India.
Please compare Apples to Apples i.e in Gaelic - seek out nations of your size like Singapore , Dubai , etc . While you're on it , please also answer the questions I posed you in my previous post .
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Nikhil and Aravind
Oh wow, Top Secret documents just happened to get leaked.:LOL:
Do you even read?
Those documents are part of Declassified documents, some are leaked documents
From USA
Source: George Bush Presidential Library. George H.W. Bush Collection. Series: United Nations File, 1971-1972, Box 4.
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XI, South Asia Crisis, 1971 - Office of the Historian

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1969–1976, VOLUME XI, SOUTH ASIA CRISIS, 1971
216. Transcript of a Telephone Conversation Between President Nixon and His Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger)1

December 3, 1971, 10:45 a.m.

K: Two matters I want to raise. It appears that West Pakistan has attacked because situation in East collapsing. State wants to use it as a pretext not to put out statement2 at noon. I think itʼs more reason to cancel programs. State believes and I agree that we should take it to the Security Council once actions are confirmed. If a major war [develops] without going to the Security Council it would be a confession of poverty.

P: Who will object?

K: India and the Soviet Union.

P: So we have to.

K: Apparently no one else will. Even the liberal papers are supporting that.

P: I am for that. We have to cut off arms aid to India. We should have done it earlier. Allow India bias.

K: Yes.

P: Siscoʼs part? He isnʼt pro-Indian. Itʼs what they want below.

K: Sisco has no convictions. Liberal, [omission in the source text], socialist syndrome. The Indians will just add—

[Page 594]
P: I have decided it and there is no appeal.

K: I also think—

P: I wrote it independently of anyone and I am surprised it hasnʼt been done.

K: It wonʼt reach the UN tomorrow or late today. We shouldnʼt make a catastrophe of everything we have done and why Indian actions unjustified.

P: So West Pakistan giving trouble there.

K: If they lose half of their country without fighting they will be destroyed. They may also be destroyed this way but they will go down fighting.

P: They will have enough for a few days. It puts the Soviets on the spot.

K: I think I should give a brief note to the Russians so that they donʼt jump around about conversation yesterday and say we are going on your conversation with Gromyko.3 A strong blast at their Vietnam friends and behavior on India. We are moving on our side but they are not doing enough on theirs.

P: On India certainly but on VN I wonder if it sounds hollow.

[Omitted here is discussion unrelated to South Asia.]

P: Pakistan thing makes your heart sick. For them to be done so by the Indians and after we have warned the bitch. Their [omission in the source text] and that but they have brought it on. We have to cut off arms. Why not? Because attacked by W. Pakistan. Tell them that when India talked about W. Pakistan attacking them itʼs like Russian claiming to be attacked by Finland.

K: They will do it or we will do it from Key Biscayne. Itʼs a hell of a way but we can do it and I will get that message to the Soviets.

  1. Source: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Kissinger Papers, Box 370, Telephone Conversations, Chronological File. No classification marking. The President vacationed in Key Biscayne, Florida, December 3–5; Kissinger was in Washington.
  2. Reference is to a statement announcing the cut-off of military assistance to India.
  3. See Document 153.
  4. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XI, South Asia Crisis, 1971 - Office of the Historian

Isn't it amazing how you choose to dissect one small period of history and ignore countless invasions and insurgencies either by or backed by Russia/Soviet Union? And you might also consider that the territory in question was in fact East Pakistan and therefore maybe India were the aggressors, much as I have no great affinity for Pakistan.
It isn't period of history, more like what is the history for past 50 years. When it comes to India, your history is bad.You harbor terrorists and trouble makers thinking to use them as your foreign policy against India.

Nato is no holy cow, you engineered assasinations, violent coups,regime changes and a lot of things.
East Pakistan is a Neighbor of India, when your ally was committing Genocide 3 million killed, Millions of refugees came to India , moreover it was Pakistan which started War on Western Front and that gave us the reason to go to war.
We were not starting a war which was half way around the world and where the countries don't share a border with us. Unlike You.
 
Last edited:
@BMD
1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy
HISTORY
DEC 20, 2011
RAKESH KRISHNAN SIMHA
59e4cec685600a0a113dbd1c.jpg

An Indian Army soldiers at Pakistani positions in a village across an open field, 1,500 yards inside the East Pakistan border at Dongarpara on Dec. 7, 1971.
AP
  • 440
Exactly 40 years ago, India won a famous victory over Pakistan due to its brilliant soldiers, an unwavering political leadership, and strong diplomatic support from Moscow. Less well known is Russia’s power play that prevented a joint British-American attack on India.
Washington DC, December 3, 1971, 10:45am.
US President Richard Nixon is on the phone with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, hours after Pakistan launched simultaneous attacks on six Indian airfields, a reckless act that prompted India to declare war.
Nixon:
So West Pakistan giving trouble there.
Kissinger: If they lose half of their country without fighting they will be destroyed. They may also be destroyed this way but they will go down fighting.
Nixon: The Pakistan thing makes your heart sick. For them to be done so by the Indians and after we have warned the bitch (reference to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi). Tell them that when India talks about West Pakistan attacking them it's like Russia claiming to be attacked by Finland.
Washington, December 10, 1971, 10:51am.
A week later the war is not going very well for Pakistan, as Indian armour scythes through East Pakistan and the Pakistan Air Force is blown out of the subcontinent’s sky. Meanwhile, the Pakistani military in the west is demoralised and on the verge of collapse as the Indian Army and Air Force attack round the clock.
Nixon: Our desire is to save West Pakistan. That's all.
Kissinger: That's right. That is exactly right.
Nixon: All right. Keep those carriers moving now.
Kissinger: The carriers—everything is moving. Four Jordanian planes have already moved to Pakistan, 22 more are coming. We're talking to the Saudis, the Turks we've now found are willing to give five. So we're going to keep that moving until there's a settlement.
Nixon: Could you tell the Chinese it would be very helpful if they could move some forces or threaten to move some forces?
Kissinger: Absolutely.
Nixon: They've got to threaten or they've got to move, one of the two. You know what I mean?
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon: How about getting the French to sell some planes to the Paks?
Kissinger: Yeah. They're already doing it.
Nixon: This should have been done long ago. The Chinese have not warned the Indians.
Kissinger: Oh, yeah.
Nixon: All they've got to do is move something. Move a division. You know, move some trucks. Fly some planes. You know, some symbolic act. We're not doing a goddamn thing, Henry, you know that.
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon: But these Indians are cowards. Right?
Kissinger: Right. But with Russian backing. You see, the Russians have sent notes to Iran, Turkey, to a lot of countries threatening them. The Russians have played a miserable game.
If the two American leaders were calling Indians cowards, a few months earlier the Indians were a different breed altogether. This phone call is from May 1971.
Nixon: The Indians need—what they need really is a—
Kissinger: They’re such *censored*s.
Nixon: A mass famine. But they aren't going to get that…But if they're not going to have a famine the last thing they need is another war. Let the goddamn Indians fight a war.
Kissinger: They are the most aggressive goddamn people around there.
The 1971 war is considered to be modern India’s finest hour, in military terms. The clinical professionalism of the Indian army, navy and air force; a charismatic brass led by the legendary Sam Maneckshaw; and ceaseless international lobbying by the political leadership worked brilliantly to set up a famous victory. After two weeks of vicious land, air and sea battles, nearly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered before India's rampaging army, the largest such capitulation since General Paulus' surrender at Stalingrad in 1943. However, it could all have come unstuck without help from veto-wielding Moscow, with which New Delhi had the foresight to sign a security treaty in 1970.
As Nixon’s conversations with the wily Kissinger show, the forces arrayed against India were formidable. The Pakistani military was being bolstered by aircraft from Jordan, Iran, Turkey and France. Moral and military support was amply provided by the US, China and the UK. Though not mentioned in the conversations here, the UAE sent in half a squadron of fighter aircraft and the Indonesians dispatched at least one naval vessel to fight alongside the Pakistani Navy.
However, Russia’s entry thwarted a scenario that could have led to multiple pincer movements against India.
Superpowers face-off
On December 10, even as Nixon and Kissinger were frothing at the mouth, Indian intelligence intercepted an American message, indicating that the US Seventh Fleet was steaming into the war zone. The Seventh Fleet, which was then stationed in the Gulf of Tonkin, was led by the 75,000 ton nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise. The world’s largest warship, it carried more than 70 fighters and bombers. The Seventh Fleet also included the guided missile cruiser USS King, guided missile destroyers USS Decatur, Parsons and Tartar Sam, and a large amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli.
Standing between the Indian cities and the American ships was the Indian Navy’s Eastern Fleet led by the 20,000-ton aircraft carrier, Vikrant, with barely 20 light fighter aircraft. When asked if India’s Eastern Fleet would take on the Seventh Fleet, the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Vice Admiral N. Krishnan, said: “Just give us the orders.” The Indian Air Force, having wiped out the Pakistani Air Force within the first week of the war, was reported to be on alert for any possible intervention by aircraft from the Enterprise.
Meanwhile, Soviet intelligence reported that a British naval group led by the aircraft carrier Eagle had moved closer to India’s territorial waters. This was perhaps one of the most ironic events in modern history where the Western world’s two leading democracies were threatening the world’s largest democracy in order to protect the perpetrators of the largest genocide since the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. However, India did not panic. It quietly sent Moscow a request to activate a secret provision of the Indo-Soviet security treaty, under which Russia was bound to defend India in case of any external aggression.
The British and the Americans had planned a coordinated pincer to intimidate India: while the British ships in the Arabian Sea would target India’s western coast, the Americans would make a dash into the Bay of Bengal in the east where 100,000 Pakistani troops were caught between the advancing Indian troops and the sea.

To counter this two-pronged British-American threat, Russia dispatched a nuclear-armed flotilla from Vladivostok on December 13 under the overall command of Admiral Vladimir Kruglyakov, the Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet). Though the Russian fleet comprised a good number of nuclear-armed ships and atomic submarines, their missiles were of limited range (less than 300 km). Hence to effectively counter the British and American fleets the Russian commanders had to undertake the risk of encircling them to bring them within their target. This they did with military precision.
In an interview to a Russian TV programme after his retirement, Admiral Kruglyakov, who commanded the Pacific Fleet from 1970 to 1975, recalled that Moscow ordered the Russian ships to prevent the Americans and British from getting closer to “Indian military objects”. The genial Kruglyakov added: “The Chief Commander’s order was that our submarines should surface when the Americans appear. It was done to demonstrate to them that we had nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean. So when our subs surfaced, they recognised us. In the way of the American Navy stood the Soviet cruisers, destroyers and atomic submarines equipped with anti-ship missiles. We encircled them and trained our missiles at the Enterprise. We blocked them and did not allow them to close in on Karachi, Chittagong or Dhaka."
At this point, the Russians intercepted a communication from the commander of the British carrier battle group, Admiral Dimon Gordon, to the Seventh Fleet commander: “Sir, we are too late. There are the Russian atomic submarines here, and a big collection of battleships.” The British ships fled towards Madagascar while the larger US task force stopped before entering the Bay of Bengal.
The Russian manoeuvres clearly helped prevent a direct clash between India and the US-UK combine. Newly declassified documents reveal that the Indian Prime Minister went ahead with her plan to liberate Bangladesh despite inputs that the Americans had kept three battalions of Marines on standby to deter India, and that the American aircraft carrier USS Enterprise had orders to target the Indian Army, which had broken through the Pakistani Army’s defences and was thundering down the highway to the gates of Lahore, West Pakistan’s second largest city.
According to a six-page note prepared by India's foreign ministry, "The bomber force aboard the Enterprise had the US President's authority to undertake bombing of the Indian Army's communications, if necessary."
China in the box
Despite Kissinger’s goading and desperate Pakistani calls for help, the Chinese did nothing. US diplomatic documents reveal that Indira Gandhi knew the Soviets had factored in the possibility of Chinese intervention. According to a cable referring to an Indian cabinet meeting held on December 10, “If the Chinese were to become directly involved in the conflict, Indira Gandhi said, the Chinese know that the Soviet Union would act in the Sinkiang region. Soviet air support may be made available to India at that time.”
Interestingly, while the cable is declassified, the source and extensive details of the Indian Prime Minister’s briefing remain classified. “He is a reliable source” is all that the document says. There was very clearly a cabinet level mole the Americans were getting their information from.
Intolerable hatred
On December 14, General A.A.K. Niazi, Pakistan's military commander in East Pakistan, told the American consul-general in Dhaka that he was willing to surrender. The message was relayed to Washington, but it took the US 19 hours to relay it to New Delhi. Files suggest senior Indian diplomats suspected the delay was because Washington was possibly contemplating military action against India.
Kissinger went so far as to call the crisis “our Rhineland” a reference to Hitler’s militarisation of German Rhineland at the outset of World War II. This kind of powerful imagery indicates how strongly Kissinger and Nixon came to see Indians as a threat.
An Indiana University study of the conflict says: “The violation of human rights on a massive scale—described in a March 30 US cable as “selective genocide”—and the complete disregard for democracy were irrelevant to Nixon and Kissinger. In fact, the non-democratic aspects of Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan’s behaviour seemed to be what impressed them the most. As evidence mounted of military atrocities in East Pakistan, Nixon and Kissinger remained unmoved. In a Senior Review Group meeting, Kissinger commented at news of significant casualties at a university that, ‘The British didn’t dominate 400 million Indians all those years by being gentle’.”
Nixon and Kissinger phoned Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev and asked for guarantees that India would not attack West Pakistan. “Nixon was ready to link the future summit in Moscow to Soviet behaviour on this issue," writes professor Vladislav M. Zubok in A Failed Empire. "The Soviets could not see why the White House supported Pakistan, who they believed had started the war against India. Brezhnev, puzzled at first, was soon enraged. In his narrow circle, he even suggested giving India the secret of the atomic bomb. His advisers did their best to kill this idea. Several years later, Brezhnev still reacted angrily and spoke spitefully about American behaviour."
Cold Warriors
Another telephone conversation between the scheming duo reveals a lot about the mindset of those at the highest echelons of American decision making:
Kissinger: And the point you made yesterday, we have to continue to squeeze the Indians even when this thing is settled.
Nixon: We've got to for rehabilitation. I mean, Jesus Christ, they've bombed—I want all the war damage; I want to help Pakistan on the war damage in Karachi and other areas, see?
Kissinger: Yeah
Nixon: I don't want the Indians to be happy. I want a public relations programme developed to piss on the Indians.
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon: I want to piss on them for their responsibility. Get a white paper out. Put down, White paper. White paper. Understand that?
Kissinger: Oh, yeah.
Nixon: I don't mean for just your reading. But a white paper on this.
Kissinger: No, no. I know.
Nixon: I want the Indians blamed for this, you know what I mean? We can't let these goddamn, sanctimonious Indians get away with this. They've pissed on us on Vietnam for 5 years, Henry.
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon:
Aren't the Indians killing a lot of these people?
Kissinger: Well, we don't know the facts yet. But I'm sure they're not as stupid as the West Pakistanis—they don't let the press in. The idiot Paks have the press all over their place.

1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BlackOpsIndia
I'm referring to facts on the ground not perceptions . Please demonstrate in what way did those Bengali freedom fighters go on to terrorize the neighbourhood or the West.


You went to Iraq on the pretext that SH was developing N Weapons . There is ample literature on the net to demonstrate this was lie even before the invasion began . Subsequent to the invasion, there's not a shred of evidence to indicate that Iraq had a NWP. Now , we've an Irish apologist proffering fanciful excuses like MANPADS to justify the invasion . Are they classified as WMD's ?

Please compare Apples to Apples i.e in Gaelic - seek out nations of your size like Singapore , Dubai , etc . While you're on it , please also answer the questions I posed you in my previous post .
Facts according to who? You see this is the problem, it's a complicated issue. Maybe the majority of people in East Pakistan wanted to break away as Bangladesh but maybe the majority of people in Kashmir want to break away too. And the same could be said for Catalonia in Spain and many other small parts of countries across the world. That doesn't make it right.

Sure but the real reason was a job not done in 1991 and the unforeseen consequences of that. I said the insurgents were sponsored by Iran and China that was nothing to do with the reason for removing Saddam but does explain the shit-show afterwards.

So the reason the GDP/Capita in ROI is 40x that of India is simply because it's smaller? How is Dubai a fair comparison, they have tons of oil. But if we take the UAE, even with its copious amounts of oil, its GDP is still lower than ROI's.

Why are some of the richest men in ROI form India? You wouldn't like the true answer to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bali78