Bush to Press India, Pakistan on Kashmir

[Space Tycoon]

America wants India to be the top dog in South Asia. I'm not sure what he has in mind as far as "settling" the Kashmir dispute. Going by recent history in the Middle East, I imagine it involves giving India pretty much everything they want, thereby enraging the Islamists.

Bush to Press India, Pakistan on Kashmir (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_kashmir_3)

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - President Bush said he would use his visit to India and Pakistan this week to urge both sides to find a lasting solution to their dispute over Kashmir.

Kashmir is divided between the South Asian rivals but both claim the Himalayan region in full and have fought two wars over it.

"I will use my trip to urge the leadership to continue solving this issue with the idea that it can be solved," Bush told state-owned Pakistan Television in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Bush, who arrives in India on Wednesday and travels to Pakistan on Saturday, said that recent discussions with Pakistani counterpart Gen. Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh revealed that attitudes have changed since he first came to office in 2000.

In 2002, the nuclear neighbors came close to war, but in the past two years they have pursued peace talks.

"I believe a lasting solution can be achieved," Bush said. "I've seen the progress that's been made in the relations since I first became president."

Pakistan has become a valuable ally of the United States in the war on terror, and Bush said he wanted to use his trip to Islamabad next Saturday to let Pakistanis know "that the American people care about them."

"This is a relationship that's much bigger than the war on terror," said Bush, referring to the American relief response to the Oct. 8 earthquake that devastated Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.

Bush said "we'll be talking about a bilateral investment treaty" as a step toward increasing trade between the United States and Pakistan.

[Intelligent_Design]

This is a no Brainer. India is the world's largest Democracy.

[Space Tycoon]

True, but a democracy with it's own ambitions and it's own share of blood on it's hands. I'm not anti-Indian or anything, they deserve to see the conflict resolved and have made some progress there. I just don't think Dubya's the man for the job.

I also think it's clear, the US-particularly the neocons, want to vigorously promote India as a regional counterweight to both Islam and China. Eventually, they would like to see India surpass China in power and wealth.

The question is, what do the Indians want?

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I don't see any remarks in the quoted Bush comments that lend any credence to the idea that he wants India to be "top dog" in south Asia. I mean, what are you referring to here, as it can't be the article you posted?

[Space Tycoon]

It's an open secret right now that the Bush Administration and India are forging very strong defence and economic ties:

After Manmohan Singh’s U.S. Visit
U.S. has signaled that it is looking at India in a totally new way
(http://www.iacfpa.org/p_news/nit/iacpa-archieve/2005/08/05/diplo1-05082005.html)

In the meeting between Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 18, shortly before the meeting with the CEOs, Bush told the Indian leader that his administration sees India emerging as a world power in the 21st century and wants to work with it in a “global partnership” in a wide range of areas –– from civilian nuclear cooperation to defense and military matters, to frontier areas of high-technology and space, energy security, economy, combating AIDS, forming a joint front against terrorism and to spreading democracy. If there was any area of collaboration that was left out, it was hard to find.

The new India-U.S. relationship, defined in a Joint Statement issued after that meeting, “will promote stability, democracy, prosperity and peace throughout the world. It will enhance our ability to work together to provide global leadership in areas of mutual concern and interest.”

If there were signals in this for the rest of the world, they were not hard to fathom. The U.S. was going to see the world from a different prism and perhaps reorder its foreign policy perspective to suit its new international thinking...



Indo-US ties under Bush (http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/indo-us-ties-under-b-8108.html)In its manifesto, Kerry’s Democratic Party dismissed India in two sentences, mainly restricted to a call for steps to reduce Indo-Pak tensions and guarding against the possibility of their nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. The Republican manifesto on the other hand, devoted five times the space to India and talked of a historic transformation of Indo-US relations under Bush and envisioned a role for India “creating a strategically stable Asia.”

Bush Administration's Discovery of India
(http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/02/25/1407086.htm)

Unbeknownst to reporters though, the year had begun with a series of top-level meetings in the White House between the President and his principals - key cabinet officials including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and others.

On the agenda was a complete makeover of American policy in Asia, ranging from the middle east to far east. The US was getting increasingly isolated and friendless.

It needed a strong ally, an ally with whom it had common interest and values. Over several sessions, the strategy began to take shape....



India and the New American Hegemony
(http://www.mirakamdar.com/hegemony.html)

It is highly significant that the 2001 official statement by the Bush administration on the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America" focuses on India in Section VIII, the section titled "Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power." The fact that the Administration defines India as a "main center of global power" and not, as previous administrations might have done, as part of the developing world represents an important shift in U.S. policy toward India....

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I see. I still don't get what point you're trying to make, if any, though.

The U.S. wants friendly and cooperative relationships with both India and Pakistan, so I don't think we would necessarily take either side regarding Kashmir.

As for "enraging" Islamists, can we possibly make them hate us any more than they already do? :)

[Space Tycoon]

I see. I still don't get what point you're trying to make, if any, though. That's a contradiction. If you did "see," you would get the point I'm trying to make. :smirk:

My point is, this is yet another example of the neocons trying to play God with an entire civilization, treating a whole region like a game of Risk. Obviously it is a very positive thing that India is emerging out of the doldrums of socialism and poverty into a new era of high-tech, entrepreneurial economic growth. But I wonder, are we not unwise to aid their military ambitions with such enthusiasm?

From our experiences in the Middle East, Central and South America, have we learned nothing about the law of unintended consequences?

Indians are a fine people with a distinctive culture and history. India has suffered long at the hands of Western, mainly British, colonialists, and there is a lot of latent anti-Americanism. Many Indians were opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, and are not happy with the growing axis between New Delhi and Washington--especially as this axis also happens to include London, the capital of the former colonizer.

They will inevitably question our motives, as rightly they should. Kissinger famously remarked, being America's friend is often worse than being her enemy. I think many Indians see this policy shift as as a way to bring India into the orbit of Washington, which brings with it certain risks and obligations--which they may not be willing to undertake.

One more thing. India has a potent "religious right," for lack of a better term, in the form of militant Hindu nationalism. When some time passes, and India has amassed considerable economic and military power, who's to say that some future expansionist government might not come to power and decide to throw their weight around? You have to think long term. When Japan was forced open 150 years ago, western interests had a field day modernizing what they saw as a backward, feudal nation into an industrial powerhouse.

Many would say they succeeded only too well...

As for "enraging" Islamists, can we possibly make them hate us any more than they already do? :)

Damage control. Don't make the patient any sicker.

[Intelligent_Design]

America has greater economic Interests in Pakistan/India than ever before. So it would behoove us to make sure they get along. Will it work? I doubt it. Kashmir has been fought over for thousands of years. We must not have learned our lesson about getting in the middle of long standing disputes.

[Space Tycoon]

By arming both sides, America seems to be encouraging the arms race between the two countries, which bankrupted Pakistan and nearly brought the two to all-out war a few times.

This is how I see it, anyway.

[omicron]

If we would stop wearing their sweaters, maybe the problem would just go away.

Wait, that's Cashmere.......Nevermind.....:D

Omicron

[Space Tycoon]

Maybe the two leaders should just sit down together and listen to Led Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti. :smirk:

[Intelligent_Design]

By arming both sides, America seems to be encouraging the arms race between the two countries, which bankrupted Pakistan and nearly brought the two to all-out war a few times.

This is how I see it, anyway.

Well if peace can't be achieved at least we will be allies with the winner.

[sickness]

Nope. That will just encourage more people to write songs about Kashmir and, inevitably, someone will write something favoring one side and telling the other they lick ass. Led Zeppelin steered around the problem by calling the who damn place worthless and pissing everyone off but someone will tip the balance.

[sickness]

Well if peace can't be achieved at least we will be allies with the winner.

Dude, that's about the funniest deadpan I've ever seen. Seriously.

[Space Tycoon]

Nope. That will just encourage more people to write songs about Kashmir and, inevitably, someone will write something favoring one side and telling the other they lick ass. India and Pakistan need their own local versions of Toby Keith.

[American]

This is a no Brainer. India is the world's largest Democracy.

But we have to keep friends with Pakistan because they have a bad Islamic Radicalism problem. And that problem could come to a head with Musharraf dead and Islamic nutties in charge, with nukes at their disposal. As long as we stay friends, we can continue to push for them to take on the terrorists, even though the fact we are friends with the government is the reason they are a threat to Musharraf in the first place


I also think it's clear, the US-particularly the neocons, want to vigorously promote India as a regional counterweight to both Islam and China. Eventually, they would like to see India surpass China in power and wealth.

The question is, what do the Indians want?
As a regional counterweight, you are so right. India is our only foothold in Asia economically. It's vital that we keep that foothold so China can't fully takeover, becoming an even bigger economic rival.

As for what do they want...that's easy: American jobs (outsourcing)

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

That's a contradiction. If you did "see," you would get the point I'm trying to make. :smirk:

My point is, this is yet another example of the neocons trying to play God with an entire civilization, treating a whole region like a game of Risk. Obviously it is a very positive thing that India is emerging out of the doldrums of socialism and poverty into a new era of high-tech, entrepreneurial economic growth. But I wonder, are we not unwise to aid their military ambitions with such enthusiasm?

From our experiences in the Middle East, Central and South America, have we learned nothing about the law of unintended consequences?

Indians are a fine people with a distinctive culture and history. India has suffered long at the hands of Western, mainly British, colonialists, and there is a lot of latent anti-Americanism. Many Indians were opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, and are not happy with the growing axis between Mumbai and Washington--especially as this axis also happens to include London.

They will inevitably question our motives, as rightly they should. Kissinger famously remarked, being America's friend is often worse than being her enemy. I think many Indians see this policy shift as as a way to bring India into the orbit of Washington, which brings with it certain risks and obligations--which they may not be willing to undertake.

One more thing. India has a potent "religious right," for lack of a better term, in the form of militant Hindu nationalism. When some time passes, and India has amassed considerable economic and military power, who's to say that some future expansionist government might not come to power and decide to throw their weight around? You have to think long term. When Japan was forced open 150 years ago, western interests had a field day modernizing what they saw as a backward, feudal nation into an industrial powerhouse.

Many would say they succeeded only too well...



Damage control. Don't make the patient any sicker.

I see means I see that you believe the U.S. government favors India over Pakistan, and would like to bring India under our wing, so to speak. The point you're making still seems elusive to me. I think you're trying to say it is a mistake for the U.S. to try and make India our partner in the region. I don't.

As for the Islamists, they need to get their heads out of their asses. I'm sick of the excuse making for the Islamic world. As Lincoln said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Well, you must understand that the world is now a "house" and you can't have a social structure and religion based on oppression and subservience that violently opposes any other way of life running loose without opposition. That is what is going on here, those who value individual freedom and equality, tolerance of differences, and acceptance that all human beings have certain inalienable rights are in conflict with those who believe in something else.

[Space Tycoon]

I see means I see that you believe the U.S. government favors India over Pakistan, and would like to bring India under our wing, so to speak. The point you're making still seems elusive to me. I think you're trying to say it is a mistake for the U.S. to try and make India our partner in the region. I don't. Well we'll see won't we? I hope they take our orders well, and don't get any funny ideas about pursuing independent nationalism. It's not like Thomas Jefferson warned us about entangling alliances or anything...

As Lincoln said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Well, you must understand that the world is now a "house" The world is now a house? That's a terrifying thought. Believe me the world is no "house." It's not even a village. One world government will erode our liberties and choices far sooner than some faroff dictator or militant group.

That is what is going on here, those who value individual freedom and equality, tolerance of differences, and acceptance that all human beings have certain inalienable rights are in conflict with those who believe in something else.And they will continue to resist our failed efforts to homogenize their culture and religion to suit our fancy. Meanwhile we may very well be losing our democracy here at home. Freedom, equality, tolerance, and acceptance are usually the first things to go when the state commits to total war.

[Space Tycoon]

Maoist bomb attack kills 55 in India
(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18308932%255E1702,00.html)

Analysts said the attack showed New Delhi could ill-afford to take the growing Maoist threat lightly, saying that the rebels posed a bigger danger than Kashmiri Islamist militants.

[DaForce]

So this is something I don't understand...Iran, who has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is being threatened by sanctions and invasion by the U.S. for starting a nuclear program...yet India which has not signed the treaty and is essentially at war with Pakistan has the blessings of the U.S. to start building nuclear weapons.

WTF?

This is actually worse than that little thing the Reagan administration did back in the 80's when they put a a guy named Saddam in power in Iraq. Because you know that in 10 or 20 years (probably more like 5 years really) India is going to turn around and start using nukes to get what they want.


Damn. I'm still shocked that people here in the U.S. still voted that twit G.W. back into office, and still support him when his administration does shit like this. Here's a short list of failures from this administration:

- The quagmire of the illegal invasion of Iraq (I can't even call this a war)
- The fuck up of FEMA by placing it under the Dept. of Homeland Security
- The transfer of American ports to an UAE company (like that's not a security breach waiting to happen)
- Patting India on the head and giving them nukes to play with


What can they do for an encore? Burn the American plains and salt the earth?

[Intelligent_Design]

So this is something I don't understand...Iran, who has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is being threatened by sanctions and invasion by the U.S. for starting a nuclear program...yet India which has not signed the treaty and is essentially at war with Pakistan has the blessings of the U.S. to start building nuclear weapons.



To be fair, the President of Iran has called for the removal of a whole race of People. That might make some people, a lil Paranoid.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Well we'll see won't we? I hope they take our orders well, and don't get any funny ideas about pursuing independent nationalism. It's not like Thomas Jefferson warned us about entangling alliances or anything...

The world is now a house? That's a terrifying thought. Believe me the world is no "house." It's not even a village. One world government will erode our liberties and choices far sooner than some faroff dictator or militant group.

And they will continue to resist our failed efforts to homogenize their culture and religion to suit our fancy. Meanwhile we may very well be losing our democracy here at home. Freedom, equality, tolerance, and acceptance are usually the first things to go when the state commits to total war.

Yes, the world is now a "house." One planet, One species. My belief is that we are all going to have to learn to live with each other's differences and a good place to start is by resolving the conflict in the Middle East in such a way that everyone can accept. The only way to do that is to get all affected parties together in a room and make them talk to each other in a rational way. The time has come for realizing that no matter what the differences are, they can be resolved through compromise, peacefully, by reasonable men. If one side doesn't want to be reasonable, then fuck 'em, and they should suffer the consequences of their folly.

I just can't abide this insanity as demonstrated by the nations of the world any longer. As far as I'm concerned, EVERYONE is at fault in the Middle East, and until someone with a clear head realizes that, and gets all of us to start talking instead of shooting and blowing things up, the idiotic violence will just continue unabated.

[DaForce]

To be fair, the President of Iran has called for the removal of a whole race of People. That might make some people, a lil Paranoid.


But he didn't say that they (Iran) would be the ones to bomb them out of existance. India, on the other hand, has called for the complete destruction of Pakistan from time to time, and likewise Pakistan has called for the destruction of India.


The idea to arm a country that has an active front line of defense (as both India and Pakistan do) with nukes, is no different than giving a monkey a loaded gun. Sooner or later you know the monkey is going to fire the gun, you just don't know what the target is going to be.

[Space Tycoon]

So this is something I don't understand...Iran, who has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is being threatened by sanctions and invasion by the U.S. for starting a nuclear program...yet India which has not signed the treaty and is essentially at war with Pakistan has the blessings of the U.S. to start building nuclear weapons.
That's pretty much the name of that tune. I may have give the impression that I am opposed to good, mutually beneficial arrangements between the US and India. I'm not slamming the door on that. Clearly, the Indians have made great economic and social progress in the last ten years or so, progress to be encouraged. They are truly a rising power to be reckoned with, and we should naturally be good friends and business associates. But you have to look closer. Discover the underlying patterns in the chaos that is South Asian politics.

There are really two faces to India, the way I see it. There is the pleasant face many of us see when we think of the rich cultural diversity of Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, etc. all sharing a nation of one billion. The nation that produced Ghandi, not to mention countless scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, writers, human rights advocates etc. Not to mention exotic cuisine, colourful Bollywood musicals, and the Kama Sutra. A nation of compliant, helpful coolies who we expect will do a lot of our heavy lifting in the "War on Terror" for a good low price. A Nukes-Up-The-Wazoo preponderant military power to serve as a counterweight to both our official and unofficial adversaries in the region-- Islam and China. I think most of us look at India and we see more or less exactly what we want to see.

But there's another face, a nastier face. A government which is certainly a working democracy, but a democracy with a lengthy record of torture, repression, and even mass murder to it's credit. In particular, we must remember the democide visited upon the Sikhs during the 1980's, a state-sponsored massacre most of the world has conveniently forgotten, but which surely ranks up there with Saddam's repression of the Kurds. A society which has historically been sharply divided by colour lines, where literally millions upon millions of darker skinned lower-caste citizens are left to rot in extreme poverty, hopefully to be reincarnated as something better. A state with superpower ambitions of their own, who will probably not be willing to carry water for America's neocons--or neoliberals, for that matter-- once they have gained a certain level of power and respectability.

So in short, they're like any other civilization in any other part of the world, except that in the supposedly "new realities" of the post-9/11 world, they are perceived as our natural fellow-travellers and reinforcements, who will help us in our mission to control the pipeline of crucial Central Asian oil, spread democracy to the four corners of the Earth, and set up Wal Marts all over everywhere.

What if the Indian people decide they no longer wish to march to our drums? What if we reach a point in which we are no longer able to compel them to do so?

It occurs to me that we once held similar views towards Israel. The legacy of that relationship seems dubious, at best.



Here's a short list of failures from this administration:
- The transfer of American ports to an UAE company (like that's not a security breach waiting to happen) This is a little off topic, but what the hell. I have said before and I say again, I just don't share the pants-wetting panic over the transfer of ownership of formerly British Pacific and Orient Steam Navigation Company to Dubai's Ports of the World.

I agree the federal and state governments should be front and centre in terms of inspecting shipments for possible WMD. But I think this whole brouhaha is largely motivated by racist association of Arabs and terrorism. It's bad enough for know-nothing far rightists to be pushing this issue, but liberal Democrats should know better and should not be using it as a springboard. It's a non-issue. So help me, I'm actually with the president on this one. Had to happen eventually.

I have a lot of respect for what the UAE, particularly the emirate of Dubai has accomplished and are continuing to accomplish. Rather than squander their petro-billions on limos and hookers (unlike a certain kingdom I could mention), they have invested in high-tech, forward-looking industries and staggering architectural projects. Just tonight I saw a show about a mega project in the Arabian Gulf-- the world's largest man-made island, paid for by Dubai financiers and built by a multinational team from Europe and India. Dubai is a real vindication of the free enterprise system.

I don't mean to jump on you there Daf. I just wish this story would go away. Dubai's the least of our worries in the Middle East. In fact, they may represent a step in the right direction for the Arabs.



.

[Intelligent_Design]

But there's another face, a nastier face. A government which is certainly a working democracy, but a democracy with a lengthy record of torture, repression, and even mass murder to it's credit.





Ahh, now I see why our government Loves them so. A democracy that mirrors our own. :smirks: Even down to similar Caste systems.

[Space Tycoon]

Yes, though as I say they've made some good progress lately. As have we, I would hope.

In fact, the current Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, is a Sikh, rather than a Hindu. The first in their history, if I'm not mistaken. Who knew.



.

[DaForce]

I have a lot of respect for what the UAE, particularly the emirate of Dubai has accomplished and are continuing to accomplish. Rather than squander their petro-billions on limos and hookers (unlike a certain kingdom I could mention), they have invested in high-tech, forward-looking industries and staggering architectural projects. Just tonight I saw a show about a mega project in the Arabian Gulf-- the world's largest man-made island, paid for by Dubai financiers and built by a multinational team from Europe and India. Dubai is a real vindication of the free enterprise system.

I don't mean to jump on you there Daf. I just wish this story would go away. Dubai's the least of our worries in the Middle East. In fact, they may represent a step in the right direction for the Arabs.
.



Sorry, but any country that has had traceable financial ties to terrorist actions (like the UAE and 9/11) is questionable at best. Especially since I don't trust our port "security" agents any farther than I can throw them. After seeing and hearing quite a bit at what passes through U.S. ports unchecked due to not that many inspectors, and the pressure to pass goods through the port as quickly as possible, I feel very uncomfortable having any foreign country taking over port business.

It's not a racist reaction, and it's not a xenophobic reaction, it's just a strong distrust of the reliabilty of the American work ethic. Especially when it comes to security, and especially under the current clueless administration.

[Space Tycoon]

I'm not saying your motives are racist. And I agree with your assessment of rent-a-cop security at US ports. Just that this controversy has been largely driven by fear of Arabs as a whole. Yes, there are terrorists and terrorist financiers in the UAE, as there are in any given mideastern country. But I have faith that the company Ports of the World, which has a very good record of professionalism, poses no threat to America.

Look, for years the main source of IRA financing was from the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Millions of dollars going to pay for some truly atrocious acts against British forces and civilians. And yet, relations between the US and Britain only became stronger during the time of Reagan and Thatcher, and on through the 1990's, to the point where President Clinton was able to play a siginificant role in establishing negotiations to end the conflict.

I feel a similar opportunity is in place here, to establish a relationship of trust and good faith with a rapidly modernizing Muslim country, which may lay the foundations for stronger relations with the Arab world in the future. Idealistic? Sure, but someone has to take that first step.

Instead, we are letting tribalistic, medieval fears trump any such opportunity.

Shame.


.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I'm not saying your motives are racist. And I agree with your assessment of rent-a-cop security at US ports. Just that this controversy has been largely driven by fear of Arabs as a whole. Yes, there are terrorists and terrorist financiers in the UAE, as there are in any given mideastern country. But I have faith that the company Ports of the World, which has a very good record of professionalism, poses no threat to America.

Look, for years the main source of IRA financing was from the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Millions of dollars going to pay for some truly atrocious acts against British forces and civilians. And yet, relations between the US and Britain only became stronger during the time of Reagan and Thatcher, and on through the 1990's, to the point where President Clinton was able to play a siginificant role in establishing negotiations to end the conflict.

I feel a similar opportunity is in place here, to establish a relationship of trust and good faith with a rapidly modernizing Muslim country, which may lay the foundations for stronger relations with the Arab world in the future. Idealistic? Sure, but someone has to take that first step.

Instead, we are letting tribalistic, medieval fears trump any such opportunity.

Shame.


.

I agree. We need to emphasize the positive regarding relations with Middle Eastern countries, and this port security deal is good for all parties. People tend to forget that terrorism crosses religious and political grounds. I'm sure we have more to fear from some American born and raised, caucasian zealot (remember Tim McVeigh?) than we do from anyone involved in port security from the UAE. Some people still can't get it through their heads that FDR's advice about "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" is very good advice indeed. Paranoia leads only to, well, things like invading other countries for no apparently good reason . . .

[American]

So this is something I don't understand...Iran, who has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is being threatened by sanctions and invasion by the U.S. for starting a nuclear program...yet India which has not signed the treaty and is essentially at war with Pakistan has the blessings of the U.S. to start building nuclear weapons.
India has had nuclear weapons for some time now. What Bush is doing now is signing an agreement with India on a nuclear POWER plant deal. The US helps them develop or shares technoology with them to build nuke plants for power. It's totally different


Yes, the world is now a "house." One planet, One species. My belief is that we are all going to have to learn to live with each other's differences and a good place to start is by resolving the conflict in the Middle East in such a way that everyone can accept. The only way to do that is to get all affected parties together in a room and make them talk to each other in a rational way. The time has come for realizing that no matter what the differences are, they can be resolved through compromise, peacefully, by reasonable men. If one side doesn't want to be reasonable, then fuck 'em, and they should suffer the consequences of their folly.
That's all fine and good, but the moderates are afraid to come out of the closet. It's the radicals who they fear the most. The radicals will silence them and then there will be no one to come out and talk with a cool head


I agree the federal and state governments should be front and centre in terms of inspecting shipments for possible WMD. But I think this whole brouhaha is largely motivated by racist association of Arabs and terrorism. It's bad enough for know-nothing far rightists to be pushing this issue, but liberal Democrats should know better and should not be using it as a springboard. It's a non-issue.
To go off topic for a sec, it's not just liberal Dems. Some Republicans have gotten their panties in a wad over this deal. Frist is the front guy of it for the GOP.


Ahh, now I see why our government Loves them so. A democracy that mirrors our own. :smirks: Even down to similar Caste systems.
Sometimes you can't be too choosy about who you call your ally. We know we can't rely on pakistan in the long-term because we don't know how long Musharaff will survive. For all we know, he may die in an assassination attempt tomorrow and be replaced with a theocratic islamic wannabe. Besides, Pakistan has the backing of China in the region. India is our best bet. India is the only economic superpower in that region with a Democratic background


Sorry, but any country that has had traceable financial ties to terrorist actions (like the UAE and 9/11) is questionable at best.
All because the finances went through their banks we are going to condem them? Without any other information behind that?

[sickness]

All because the finances went through their banks we are going to condem them? Without any other information behind that?

Yes. Any country whose monetary system was specifically chosen because of its ease of use for evil purposes has no business running our ports and telling us "don't worry, everything will be all right."

[Space Tycoon]

Yes. Any country whose monetary system was specifically chosen because of its ease of use for evil purposes has no business running our ports and telling us "don't worry, everything will be all right."

Well, it's not the whole country that will be running those ports. Just one company which is registered out of that country.

Once again, judging a whole people by the actions of a few...

Do you favour cancelling MFN status for the government of China? They have been fairly promiscuous with whom they conduct armaments dealing (ie., Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Albania during it's Stalinist period). Some would describe those as evil purposes, at least from our security standpoint.

Or pulling out of NAFTA with Mexico? The Mexican government, as you know, has a policy of encouraging illegal immigration to the United States, as this is a key source of their national income. They don't seem to be terribly concerned with the growth of organized crime associated with illegal immigration. And yet, how many law-abiding American citizens are victimized every year by Latino gangs from Mexico and Central America?

Addressing these two issues would anger some key constituencies--Asian business and Hispanic voting blocs. I've noticed it's much more convenient to make political hay by picking on the poor Ay-Rabs.




.

[sickness]

Well, it's not the whole country that will be running those ports. Just one company which is registered out of that country.

Once again, judging a whole people by the actions of a few...

Do you favour cancelling MFN status for the government of China? They have been fairly promiscuous with whom they conduct armaments dealing (ie., Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Albania during it's Stalinist period). Some would describe those as evil purposes, at least from our security standpoint.

Or pulling out of NAFTA with Mexico? The Mexican government, as you know, has a policy of encouraging illegal immigration to the United States, as this is a key source of their national income. They don't seem to be terribly concerned with the growth of organized crime associated with illegal immigration. And yet, how many law-abiding American citizens are victimized every year by Latino gangs from Mexico and Central America?

Addressing these two issues would anger some key constituencies--Asian business and Hispanic voting blocs. I've noticed it's much more convenient to make political hay by picking on the poor Ay-Rabs.

It's not the government itself but is a company run by the government. That said, it wouldn't matter to me whether it was the government itself or a wholly independent company since regulations by Dubai are sure to come into play. As for those other two situations, no I really wouldn't be opposed to revoking MFN or threatening economic or political sanctions on Mexico since they have failed to keep their end of the deal when it comes to the security of another sovereign nation (namely the U.S.). So quit calling anyone who thinks this is a bad idea a racist and argue it on the merits.

[Intelligent_Design]

Addressing these two issues would anger some key constituencies--Asian business and Hispanic voting blocs. I've noticed it's much more convenient to make political hay by picking on the poor Ay-Rabs.







You have a point because I was very leery of doing business with White people after the terrorist attack At OK. City and The Atlanta Olympic games.:rolleyes:

[DaForce]

India has had nuclear weapons for some time now. What Bush is doing now is signing an agreement with India on a nuclear POWER plant deal. The US helps them develop or shares technoology with them to build nuke plants for power. It's totally different


Here ya go, Skippy, a little bit of reading for ya.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/03/MNG1IHHVKA1.DTL&hw=india+nuclear&sn=001&sc=1000




President Bush announced a series of agreements during his visit to New Delhi, extending across a number of economic and security areas in addition to the nuclear proposal. The agreements were described as a high-water mark in what have been distant and often wary relations between the two countries.
But the most controversial element of the talks was Bush's proposal to transform India from a nuclear outcast -- because of its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- into a nuclear partner and major new market for U.S. commercial reactors. As an acknowledged nuclear-armed power, India has had to choose whether to keep its weapons and remain outside the nonproliferation treaty or give up its arsenal and join the treaty. The new agreement, which would require a change in U.S. law, would allow India to avoid that choice, permitting it to keep its weapons but win commercial nuclear cooperation by embracing some safeguards.


So you see, G.W.'s administration is playing a dangerous game, just like Reagan did back in to 1980's. And we all know what fruits were born from Reagan's meddling.

[Space Tycoon]

As for those other two situations, no I really wouldn't be opposed to revoking MFN or threatening economic or political sanctions on Mexico since they have failed to keep their end of the deal when it comes to the security of another sovereign nation (namely the U.S.). Well then, at least that's a consistent position. Too bad more of the opinion shapers and public officials don't see it that way, or aren't willing to take it up in public for fear of being pilloried..


So quit calling anyone who thinks this is a bad idea a racist and argue it on the merits.
I've not called anyone on this board a racist for their views. That doesn't change the fact there are a lot of... shall we say less gifted people out there who look at Dubai as just another scary Muslim country which can't be trusted. My point is, they're not. They're an example of a country pulling itself up by the bootstraps. Osama bin Laden chose recruits for 9/11 from Saudi and the UAE for precisely these reasons-- to exploit latent feelings of distrust and drive a psychological wedge between the US and these two countries. This guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude towards Dubai is a fine example of the success of this tactic.

I feel I have argued this on the merits. No-one has really given me a solid reason why this deal represents a mortal threat to America. If anything, all of this attention now focused on port security may serve to reduce the likelihood of an attack from that direction. It would be too obvious. We're conditioned to expect it now.

Fact is, there are x-number of ways to implement a mass-casualty attack on American soil. Apartment bombings, mall attacks-- as you yourself pointed out some time ago, who's to say they wouldn't reuse the tried and true skyjacking kamikaze approach? Terror bombings are like meteor strikes-- you can never predict, or realistically hope to stop a truly determined mad bomber, gunman or highjacker. Terrorism is a direct product of decades of bipartisan US policies towards the mideast which have only accellerated under this administration--invasions, aerial bombardments, occupations, state-sanctioned torture, etc. Unless the policies change, the terror won't end.



.

[Space Tycoon]

So you see, G.W.'s administration is playing a dangerous game, just like Reagan did back in to 1980's. And we all know what fruits were born from Reagan's meddling.
My understanding, too, is that much of this technology transfer is in fact dual-use. Meaning it could very well lend itself towards weaponization in the forseeable future.



.

[Intelligent_Design]

Well then, at least that's a consistent position. Too bad more of the opinion shapers and public officials don't see it that way, or aren't willing to take it up in public for fear of being pilloried..



I've not called anyone on this board a racist for their views. That doesn't change the fact there are a lot of... shall we say less gifted people out there who look at Dubai as just another scary Muslim country which can't be trusted. My point is, they're not. They're an example of a country pulling itself up by the bootstraps. Osama bin Laden chose recruits for 9/11 from Saudi and the UAE for precisely these reasons-- to exploit latent feelings of distrust and drive a psychological wedge between the US and these two countries. This guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude towards Dubai is a fine example of the success of this tactic.

I feel I have argued this on the merits. No-one has really given me a solid reason why this deal represents a mortal threat to America. If anything, all of this attention now focused on port security may serve to reduce the likelihood of an attack from that direction. It would be too obvious. We're conditioned to expect it now.


.

This is our ports we are talking about. If a UAE company wants to set up a chain of carwashes in the US ok thats fine not many people would have a problem with it. But Ports are a big security risk as is without giving terrorists another potential outlet to figure out how to test our homeland Security measures. I think this is what has most Americans uneasy compounded by the fact that Bush may have tried to keep this deal a secret.

[Space Tycoon]

Okay, but my point is, we ought not to associate a Muslim company operating out of an Arab country with terrorism until we know the facts.

I believe that many educated, forward-thinking Arabs are as sickened by terrorism as the rest of us. Let us give them a chance to prove us right or wrong. It is my belief that Dubai PW have no actionable links to terror, and that furthermore, it would be contrary to their bottom line for them to allow terrorists to exploit any weaknesses to implement mass-casualty attacks upon United States citizens.

No-one wins in such a scenario.




.

[Intelligent_Design]

Okay, but my point is, we ought not to associate a Muslim company operating out of an Arab country with terrorism until we know the facts.

I believe that many educated, forward-thinking Arabs are as sickened by terrorism as the rest of us. Let us give them a chance to prove us right or wrong. It is my belief that Dubai PW have no actionable links to terror, and that furthermore, it would be contrary to their bottom line for them to allow terrorists to exploit any weaknesses to implement mass-casualty attacks upon United States citizens.

No-one wins in such a scenario.




.


My position on this matter is also clouded by the fact I have zero confidence in our homeland security dept. to foil anything but the most basic terror plots like shoe bombers.

[American]

Here ya go, Skippy, a little bit of reading for ya.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/03/MNG1IHHVKA1.DTL&hw=india+nuclear&sn=001&sc=1000

So you see, G.W.'s administration is playing a dangerous game, just like Reagan did back in to 1980's. And we all know what fruits were born from Reagan's meddling.

What about keeping an eye on them and how they use this equipment? Would that satisfy your concern? Would that satisfy the critics in general?

[DaForce]

What about keeping an eye on them and how they use this equipment? Would that satisfy your concern? Would that satisfy the critics in general?

Yeah, that really worked well with Saddam now, didn't it? :rolleyes:


So you're really okay that the G.W. administration is going to have to change laws in order to make the India nuke deal legal?

Wow. And I thought the Stepford wives were brainwashed...

[Space Tycoon]

I was just watching Gandhi this morning. Somhow I don't think Mohandas would approve of ICBM diplomacy...

[Space Tycoon]

(Sorry, I couldn't resist that title. Nothing wrong with a bit of levity...)

"Bush initiated arms race in South Asia" (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C03%5C06%5Cstory_6-3-2006_pg7_36)

ISLAMABAD: US President George W Bush’s visit to Pakistan has exposed the Musharraf regime’s flawed foreign policy that has left Pakistan alone in the comity of nations, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) senior vice president Syed Zafar Ali Shah said.

“The US President Bush’s visit which began from an unannounced visit to Afghanistan will leave negative impact on the future political scenario in South Asia in particular and on the world in general,” Zafar said in a news release on Sunday.

He said that Bush praised India for its role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and promised the Afghan President Hamid Karzai to take up the infiltrations issue with President Pervez Musharraf, while Pakistan, its frontline ally in the war on terror, was asked to do more to rein in terrorists.

The PML-N leader criticised the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, stating that the deal would encourage an arm race in the area.

“President Bush also offered India the latest version of the F-16 and F-18 fighter plans and arrangements to manufacture these jets in India, while he repeated the old rhetoric about Al Qaeda and war on terror in Pakistan,” he added. Bush’s passive response on the Kashmir issue was a clear indication that status quo continue to would prevail in the valley, he added. staff report





The board is in place. The pieces are moving. But where will this lead us? :dunno:




.

[sickness]

Well then, at least that's a consistent position. Too bad more of the opinion shapers and public officials don't see it that way, or aren't willing to take it up in public for fear of being pilloried..



I've not called anyone on this board a racist for their views. That doesn't change the fact there are a lot of... shall we say less gifted people out there who look at Dubai as just another scary Muslim country which can't be trusted.

Considering that every time someone here has objected to this deal for meritorious reasons, you've played the "scary Muslim" or "scary Arab" card. That, sir, is calling someone who doesn't agree with you a racist (or religionist, if there is such a term... but you know what I mean).

[Space Tycoon]

I think you are assuming too much. If I considered you a racist, I would call you a racist, believe me.

You see, I don't like using that word indiscriminately, because it has been used against me from time to time, by certain luminaries who shall go unnamed.

At worst, I would say that like most Westeners, including myself, you have been so bombarded with anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda that you have come to associate Arabs and Muslims with terrorism, reflexively. Even the most educated person can be susceptible to repeated conditioning. That's why advertising works.

Why else would news of a Dubai ports deal immediately raise such a red flag? For all you know, the people associated with this arrangment may very well be professionals of the highest calibre.

While I would describe that view as somewhat intolerant, that's not the same thing as racism, or religious bigotry.





.

[sickness]

Point taken. If that is truly how you feel, would you consider stopping using the reaction that anyone who doesn't like this is automatically against it simply because we're talking about an Arab country? What I'm asking is if you can keep this civil and truly argue it on its merits, taking others words at face value?

Something I found out recently is that a Singapore-based company controls several U.S. ports. While this will obviously carry less stigma than an Arab company, I'm not to thrilled by it, either. Putting anyone but an American company in charge of American ports puts our security in the hands of other countries and this bugs the hell out of me.

[Space Tycoon]

Point taken. If that is truly how you feel, would you consider stopping using the reaction that anyone who doesn't like this is automatically against it simply because we're talking about an Arab country? What I'm asking is if you can keep this civil and truly argue it on its merits, taking others words at face value? That sounds reasonable enough. There was a time when I occasionally allowed myself to think the worst about Muslims and/or Arabs, even before 9/11. I realized I was betraying the many friends and acquaintances I had who were from that part of the world. So I don't like to toss around that accusation lightly.

Something I found out recently is that a Singapore-based company controls several U.S. ports. While this will obviously carry less stigma than an Arab company, I'm not to thrilled by it, either. Putting anyone but an American company in charge of American ports puts our security in the hands of other countries and this bugs the hell out of me.

I think that too many of us accepted the idea of a globalized economy without fully realizing the implications. Sovereignty is the first thing to go. If we want US ports to be fully secure, that would have serious implications for our consumption-driven economy. But our politicians tell us to keep on shopping, and for that you need a fast-moving supply chain.

If anything, a ports deal involving Singapore should be at least as troubling as one with Dubai apparently is. Singapore has it's own small Muslim population, at least some of whom have fallen in to the clutches of al-Qaeda. Apparently some of the planning for 9/11 (http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/DB06Ae01.html) took place in Singapore-- as indeed in Germany, Afghan, and Saudi.




.

[DaForce]

Since this seems to be the place where we're talking about the UAE port takeover as well, I'd like people to take a look at this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/03/08/cstillwell.DTL


I've never agreed with this writer before until now. Especially since she's bringing up all the same arguements that I have for this very misguided and frankly, shortsighted, deal.

[Space Tycoon]

It's too bad this thread was cleaved in half. My fault. Maybe someone can divide them into two threads?

Anyway...

"Cinnamon" (what, was she the fifth Spice Girl or something?) Stillwell makes some intersting points about illegal immigration and suchlike, but much of the rest of the article traffics in the same drumbeating paranoia I've been hearing from other quarters. Perhaps the "anti-Arab bigot" charge is overused at times, but I have to say, one does get the impression that if Dubai was a vegetarian Buddhist country, she wouldn't have a problem.

And yet even Buddhist populations can produce the worst forms of terrorism. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3573402.stm)

Stilwell writes from a self-described "9/11 Republican" perspective. Apparently she was a card-carrying liberal until the towers fell, at which point she decided to beat the drums for the neos. Beware of those whose politics pull a 180 after some great, relevatory epiphany. Back in 1995, when the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City exploded, I turned my back on all things right-wing and entered a phase of socialism, America-hating, and really bad hair. Just like that.

I'm happy to say I've gradually worked my way back to my early position of traditional conservatism, and then some. One thing I've learned is that few issues in foreign affairs, economics, culture and morality and can be reduced to simplistic slogans or quick-fix solutions.

There are some terrorists in Dubai.

There are many more people who hate terrorism in Dubai.

Do you think that sending Arab companies to the back of the economic bus will:

a) Improve relations between mideast and west, thereby reducing terrorist recruitment and popular support; or

b) Give the hardcores yet another issue on which to radicalize the youth, sowing the seeds for another 9/11?


It took a long time for the globalized economy to get to where it is now. We have all been parties to it, in some form or another. Consciously or unconsciously. It will take a long time, decades even, for us to return to a position of any real self-sufficiency. In the meantime, we have to respect our Arab business partners as free traders in a free market, as we certainly do for the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Germans, British, Brazilians, Nigerians... and so on.

This ports fiasco should not become the catalyst for some great re-nationalization movement with vague goals and timetables.

I'm afraid my mind is unchanged.



.

[DaForce]

Actually, she's not a former liberal turned ultra-conservative. She's from Sacramento (home of the California conservative) and moved down this way for a job.

Honestly, I've never seen Arab countries as ever having been at the "back of the economic bus". At least not in the last 50+ years or so, and in fact I think they have more political and economic power than any other country (Western or otherwise) at the moment. People in political power in this country are afraid to say 'no' for fear of either economic reprisals in the form of an 'oil shortage', or damaging their business dealings.

It's the 1970's all over again, but instead of Carter at the helm, we've got a retard at the wheel, and I think he might be asleep.

[Intelligent_Design]

At least not in the last 50+ years or so, and in fact I think they have more political and economic power than any other country (Western or otherwise) at the moment. People in political power in this country are afraid to say 'no' for fear of either economic reprisals in the form of an 'oil shortage', or damaging their business dealings.



I agree and they now know they have this power, thats why Iran can call for Israel to be wiped from the earth, Move toward building Nukes, And threaten the US seemingly without reprisals. The UN has been hush on this because those countries fear their survival if an oil shortage strikes their country.

[Space Tycoon]

Honestly, I've never seen Arab countries as ever having been at the "back of the economic bus". At least not in the last 50+ years or so, and in fact I think they have more political and economic power than any other country (Western or otherwise) at the moment. I'm not sure how you quantify that exactly. In terms of wealth, certainly that is true. I've heard Saudi Arabia described as the richest country in the world.

However, as to the Arab countries in general, "they," represent dozens of bickering nations, hundreds of feuding tribes, families, competitive corporations, numerous religious factions and political ideologies. They manufacture little, and invent almost nothing, due to their cultural backwardness and theocratic (to some extent or another) systems of government (most of which we continue to back, year after year). Like us, they import labour by the millions. And they can barely operate the military hardware we send them.

That's why I don't quite see the threat, as such. Oil aside (and frankly, things may be changing in that regard), the worst thing they can do to us is to kill us by the hundreds or thousands. We, on the other hand, can easily exterminate them by the millions, if it came to it-- and that may yet happen.

Send them back to the stone age. Horrible thing to contemplate.


People in political power in this country are afraid to say 'no' for fear of either economic reprisals in the form of an 'oil shortage', or damaging their business dealings. The fear is probably justified. Caution is advised. Rash, impulsive reactions are not the answer. Certainly we need to get over oil, or at least mideast oil, but within a logical timeframe, taking into account that both we and they would need to adjust to the new paradigms.


It's the 1970's all over again, but instead of Carter at the helm, we've got a retard at the wheel, and I think he might be asleep.

Well, that I do agree with. I think even he thinks he's alseep. He doesn't want to wake up! I don't blame him.



.

[DaForce]

Well, it looks like we don't have to worry about the Dubai firm takeover anymore..

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/09/national/w110446S04.DTL


Dubai Firm to Give Up Stake in U.S. Ports (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/03/09/national/w110446S04.DTL)
- By DAVID ESPO and ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writers
Thursday, March 9, 2006



(03-09) 12:40 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports.

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.

Relieved Republicans in Congress said the firm had pledged full divestiture, a decision that one senator said had been approved personally by the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.

The announcement appeared to indicate an end to a politically tinged controversy that brought President Bush and Republicans in Congress to the brink of an election-year veto battle on a terrorism-related issue.

A leading congressional critic of the ports deal, Rep. Peter King, applauded the decision but said he and others would wait to see the details. "It would have to be an American company with no links to DP World, and that would be a tremendous victory and very gratifying," said the New York Republican, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

[American]

Insanity and misinformation won.

[Space Tycoon]

Thank God the ports are safe!


Meanwhile, some guy is sitting in a nondescript apartment in a crowded building somewhere in Mahattan... or Los Angeles... or Chicago... or Toronto for that matter... slowly, quietly, loading it up with explosives...taking his time.....


:eek:




.

[sickness]

Space, cut the melodramatics. No one said this was the magic solution to terrorism.

[Space Tycoon]

I didn't say there was one. If this is the will of the American public, so be it.

I just don't like the pack mentality in the press and the public sphere, where one hot-button issue shoots to the top of the fore, while a dozen less-sexy issues of equal concern are forgotten.

Meanwhile, a lot of other countries with a lot of other agendas have a lot of their own companies or citizens doing who-knows-what, as we speak.




.

[DaForce]

Here's a little update to the nukes-to-India plan that G.W.'s administration is intent on pushing through Congress..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/04/05/national/w073735D22.DTL



The new U.S. strategic partnership between Washington and New Delhi reverses restrictions on trade with states, such as India, that did not accept comprehensive international safeguards over all their nuclear facilities. The administration's response is that the deal will foster nonproliferation by conditioning India's purchase of foreign-made nuclear reactors on opening its civilian facilities to international inspections.

However, the Congressional Research Service, in a report last week, noted that India would have the sole right to decide which reactors are civilian and which are military, which need not be under international supervision.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who played a pivotal role in negotiating the agreement, has offered assurances that "India can be trusted."

But Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is critical of the agreement.

"I do not share the view that closer U.S.-India ties will be a counterweight to China, which seems to be the unstated yet driving force behind this deal," Boxer said in remarks prepared for delivery at the hearing. "This type of thinking is not only outdated and dangerous, it flies in the face of reality."

Boxer said India's recent record indicates that it has no interest in being a "hedge" against China. "It is naive to think otherwise," Boxer said.

In advance of the hearings, Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., a supporter of the deal, said Rice's testimony would put the nuclear cooperation issue "front and center for the first time."

The House committee's senior Democrat, Lantos described as "jarring" the disclosure this week that two Iranian ships have visited ports in India.

The State Department said the visits do not suggest India was training or contributing to Iran's military capabilities.



I'm really loving how this administration is just flat out ignoring some of the more dubious (and dangerous) aspects of this completely misguided deal.

[Space Tycoon]

The Indians have learned their history, I think, and the history of other nations. To become a power broker, you have to look out for your own interests first, and not be a pawn in someone else's game or crusade.

India's quarrel is not with Islam in general, but with Pakistan. Their rivalry with China, at the moment, is simply that--rivalry between two aspiring great powers. Not exactly blood hatred.

Iran and Pakistan, on the other hand, have serious issues of contention, namely the horrific treatment of Shia minorities at the hands of Sunni extremists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020901992.html) in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is perhaps to be expected that Iran would seek out closer relations with Pakistan's number one foe. Enemy of my enemy.

Or maybe that's just me playing geostrategist again. :smirks:



.