The Upshot: We have upgraded our relationship with Pakistan. Since we were already pretty chummy with India, they think it would have been nice if they had been informed before we upgraded Pakistan to “Major Non-NATO Ally,” since this makes the Pakis eligible to buy all sorts of jolly weaponry from Uncle Sam… a thing that bothers the Indians, for some reason.
Now, I can’t really bash Bush for this. Our foreign policy has sucked since long before he, or even his old man, became President.
…but to drop this sort of ugly surprise on India, a major trade partner and strategic ally, for no apparent reason? Did the entire State Department take stupid pills this week? I mean, I’m no foreign policy expert, and even I can see that this was a remarkably stupid move! India and Pakistan have been at each other’s throats since before Pakistan even EXISTED!
What the hell? Can anyone enlighten me on this one?
T’were it me, I’d be doing it to start some shit between India and Pakistan, just to see all the American companies frantically pushing jobs over there collectively crapping their pants when that area cooks off.
But it’ain’t. Some people don’t share my morbid sense of humor.
Can’t give you the answer Master , but I would suspect it would have to do with the fact that world politics don’t run at the same speed as broadband message boards. This may have something to do with long-term impact. (Think Marshall Plan) It’s easy, as rjung demonstrates daily, to sit at a keyboard and snipe, but policy takes time to evolve and take effect.
The problems in Iraq the US is facing now is from a select few terrorists and Saddam loyalists. Don’t kid yourselves, most Iraqi’s are all for us being there. Need a cite?
Out of all the citizens in Iraq, how many have you seen on CNN thanking the coalition for making them safer? How many are shown protesting us? Now figure the percentage.
Not so. I avoid ethnic slurs, and I’m not a liberal. That’s not what’s sad about “acceptable term”. What’s sad about it is that liberals have to check with one another to find out whether a term is acceptable — as if there were some repository for such things. Slurs don’t come from the mouth; they come from the heart.
So if I were to ignorantly use the term “red Indian” to describe a Cherokee acquaintance, I shouldn’t be corrected? I shouldn’t question whether a shortened or slang term I see which describes a particular group is “acceptable” to that group?
While I appreciate India’s concern, provided you’ve reported the facts accurately, your concern may be overblown: We don’t give the really good stuff to states like Pakistan. In other words, the Pakis won’t be packin’ like the IDF because of this.
FTR, I’m pretty sure “stan” means something like “the land of,” hence “Pakistan” is the land of the Pakis, similar to the Afghans (sp?) in Afghanistan, Uzbeks in Uzbekistand, or Fucksticks in Fuckstickistan.
Actually, Pakistan’s name is a pun. It was devised in 1933 by a Cambridge student by the name of Choudhary Rahmat Ali. It is an acronym coming from the names of the provinces of the South Asian muslim homeland he dreamt of:
Punjab
Afghania
Kashmir
Iran
Sindh
Tukharistan
Afghanistan
BalochistaN
“Pakistan” can also mean “land of the pak”. “Pak” means “pure”, hence Pakistan = “land of the pure”.
I understand that “paki” is considered offensive in GB. Here’s an interesting Guardian article.
