Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ratan lal who wrote (2491)	10/3/2001 6:42:39 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

"Cheap oil" is usually said dismissively. Like "filthy lucre." The US economy would collapse without oil - as would most economies, except maybe the !Kong (Kalahari bushmen) or the Yanomami (a tribe in the Brazilian rain forest).

To: ratan lal who wrote (2491)	10/3/2001 8:35:08 PM
From: LLLefty	Respond to of 281500

>.... the US should lay the framework of its foreign policy and not veer from it for some short term gain.< While I would say the US does have an overarching set of principles which others can articulate better than me, the fact is that reality sometimes prevents it from moving in a straight line. As an example, one might note India's offer of "bases," as you put, being an exception to the non-alignment course set by Nehru. Actually, it's an exception on top an even more spectacular exception, dating to 1962 when Nehru pleaded for immediate American military assistance in one of the stranger combats of the last half of the 20th century. It was fought between India and China at 16-17,000 feet in the barren, disputed Aksai Chin region of the Himalayas and lasted several years. Known best as the McMahon Line, India apparently had been pushing forward beyond the line and set up garrisons. Objecting, the Chinese pushed back. Lots of fighting and lots dying China was winning. India at the time was in something of a nationalistic and militant atmosphere. It had just come off defeating virtually non-existent Portugal garrison and annexed Goa. But to be brief: Nehru pleaded with John Kennedy for military assistance in a hurry. He pleaded, in fact, with almost who anyone who would listen. He even asked aid from Israel but demanded it be carried in unmarked ships so as not to upset India's Moslem citizens. Israel said nix and flew its flag into harbor. France said okay but only on commercial terms. Britain came though well. US aid poured in aboard big, I think they were Galaxys, cargo planes. One after another they came. Later, the air forces of both countries quietly conducted joint excercises in INdia. So, while it's nice to have a framework, real life sometimes interupts. Or as a great American statesman is said to have replied when someone complained to him that American foreign policy seems inconsistent: "If it's consistency you want, go to MacDonalds." p. s. Personally, FWIW, I don't think Washington would dip a toe into the Kashmir dispute no matter how much asssitance Pakistan gives in OBL-Taliban business. LLL@nobeefpleasefriesyes.okay T