Skip to main content
Regular readers will recall that a month ago I emphasized the importance of Nicholas Sarkozy's military and nuclear overtures to India.

Now Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is getting the US into the game, according to Al Jazeera:

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, has visited India for talks on military deals including a possible $10.2 billion fighter jet purchase....

Earlier this month India agreed to buy six Lockheed Martin military transport planes worth about $1 billion.

The deal marked a major shift in military policy for India, which has traditionally looked to Russia for arms and aircraft....

The discussions come despite talks stalling between the two nations on a landmark nuclear co-operation deal which would reverse decades of US anti-proliferation policy with a nation that has tested nuclear weapons and refused to sign non-proliferation treaties.

The agreement permits the US to send nuclear fuel and technology to India, which in turn would separate its military and civilian nuclear programmes and allow international inspections at civilian facilities.

However the agreement ran into stiff opposition in India and the US, with members of US Congress and India's communist parties expressing anger at the deal.

Some Indians worry that it would allow the US to exert influence over their country's foreign policy, while in the US officials have expressed concern that it could lead to India's increasing its nuclear weapons supply.


First question: does anybody think this is NOT related to the Sarkozy initiative?

Second question: does everybody recall that India and Pakistan are not bosom buddies?

Third question: so if we're propping up the current Pakistani regime and sending them military hardware out the ying-yang, while at the same time looking to sell fighter jets to India, is US foreign policy (a) cynical (b) moronic (c) based on the economic value of selling arms to both sides in yet another potential theater of conflict, or (d) all of the above?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...
22 comments
Read more

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...
31 comments
Read more