Sanjay sahib, I don’t see much point in arguing with someone who is evidently not trained in how to conduct a reasoned debate. Instead of questioning my argument, you question my nationality and motives. And now my character! And then essentially repeat what you said before.

I submit that my posts are there for everyone to see – so long as the moderator wishes. So are your replies. I have shown a “Personal sense of pique”? I respectfully disagree:

All I said was to please wait for things to become clearer to emerge before extrapolating the past and jumping to conclusions. I also tried to propose alternative reasons for Brzezinski or Albright’s foreign policy. I am a political realist, and my intention was to bring in a realist perspective to what you presented.

I leave it to the readers of this discussion to figure out who flew off the handle.

Anyway, good luck with your posts

As for Gulf of Tonkin comparisons, please don’t disingenuously pretend that the US govt could stage a 9/11 attack against its own people to frame it on Iran. It tells me I’m talking to someone wearing a tinfoil hat. Brzezinski made exactly that allegation, when speaking during Congressional hearings. Spin doctors downplayed it as bombast, but it really tells me how desperate the guy is to derail the War on Terror.

Yes, it’s glaringly obvious why Brzezinski has done what he has, and why Albright is the same way, and Soros too. My father used to work for a financier colleague of Soros, and he got to see up close the ugly ethnic passions that drive such people. We Indians are mere expendables to people like that.

He has been speaking about his campaign platform for months now, and it’s placed a lot of emphasis on protectionist policies. The fact is that Indian labour inputs to the US economy help to more affordably create and sustain other jobs in the US economy, rather than purely displacing existing US jobs.
Indians are providing American companies (and consequently their workforces) with more value for their money, and that’s why those Indians are being hired. Certainly, nobody’s doing it for charity’s sake. Furthermore, Indian companies are also expanding their hiring to the US, as well as other parts of the world.

I don’t think Obama’s an idiot, but I do think that there may be others who will try to take advantage of his newness to warp his opinions.
I think we need to focus on highlighting our complaints about Brzezinski, Albright, Holbrooke, and Atlanticism in general, because this is what’s driving some of the policy biases against us in SouthAsia.

I’m glad he’s appointed Rahm Emanuel, though, as this indicates he won’t be a total stooge of the Muslim lobby. It remains to be seen how the rest of his staff turns out, but I’m certainly advocating that we keep our guard up, and plan for contingency problems if needed.

It is not a shouting match either. Your way of proving your point is to launch into a tirade every time someone disagrees with you.

You did *not* get the basic point I make: It has been less than 72 hours since this idiot was officially declared the winner. He hasn’t yet announced his cabinet.

You can continue with all your analysis, but what’s the harm in waiting for a few months before rushing to judgment? I only said that your analysis now is purely based on *past*. Even the Brzezinski interview that you cite was done in 2001 – before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, much before the deep recession that the West is in today. What’s more, India of the mid-1990s is not the same as India today.

You seem to have the mistaken notion that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a supporter of Obama/Albright/Brezinski. That is no way to conduct a reasoned debate, academic or not.

Yes, I feel your nationality matters, because I feel you’re asserting a position that is inimical to Indian interests.

My “position” – if you call it that – is that I only find it difficult to agree with your conclusions based only on the past and without current data. Perhaps your jumping to conclusions is far more harmful to our interests that a measured deliberation based on facts as they emerge.

When Kennedy and Khruschev clashed during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets only backed down because the US had a 5:1 nuclear missile superiority over them. That incident of course made the Soviets rush to overcome that gap, after Khruschev was forced into retirement.

Putin is no crude rural guy like Khruschev, and also importantly, the bulk of US forces are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has no great leverage against the Russians right now – it’s quite the opposite, in fact.

Hopefully, the Russians won’t get overconfident.

Again, Brzezinski was crafty enough to approach Obama early on, to cultivate friendship with him. His ulterior motives are glaringly obvious. Chancellor Palpatine intends to turn Anakin to the Dark Side.

More pertinently, Brzezinski will seek to tilt the balance back in Pakistan’s favour, in order to reverse what he sees as a deteriorating slide in their situation. He and his minions (Albright, Holbrooke, etc) will therefore slyly tell Obama that Pakistan’s vacillation in the War on Terror is due to the Kashmir dispute. The attempt will be made to scapegoat India for the failures of the War on Terror (ie. India’s inflexibility on Kashmir is tying Pakistan’s hands on cooperation with the US, etc)

We cannot allow renewed US intervention to revive Pakistani activism on Kashmir, bringing a revival in terrorism along with it. If the Americans do this, then we will have to hold their feet to the fire, by loading forces back onto the LOC, compelling Pak to shift troops away from NWFP, thus freeing up Taliban forces to attack into Afghanistan. If the Americans want to ride the tiger, then they’ll reap the whirlwind.