First time visitor? Learn more.

Israel and India’s strategic ties

by Speranza ( 81 Comments › )
Filed under Cold War, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, UK at August 23rd, 2013 - 8:30 am

Historically under the rule of the Gandhi dynasty and the Congress Party, India was at best frosty and at worst hostile towards Israel Nehru  followed by his daughter Indira Gandhi viewed themselves as leaders of the non aligned movement (although the non aligned movement seemed to be rather pro Soviet) and the Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser was an ally of theirs.  Also to counter Pakistan which is Islamic, India felt the need to not alienate the Arab world. During the 1962 Sino-India War, Nehru actually turned to Israel for arms (a nation he barely recognized). Nehru asked that the weapons arrive in Indian ports without any flags. Ben-Gurion said “No flags, no weapons”. The flags remained on the ships.  Thankfully things started to change in the early 1990′s when India started warming up to Israel and established full diplomatic relations (up to that point India only half recognized Israel) and leaders from both nations (including military chiefs) visited each others country.  India has become one of Israel’s greatest arms customers as both nations are threatened by Islamofascism. Unfortunately, Obama’s Islamophilic inclinations has made it manifest to all taht he is a supporter of Pakistan (Pock–ee-stan) and therefore he ahs kept at arms length the worlds largest democracy which should be a natural ally.

 

THE FIRST of the three AWACS from Israel delivered to Agra airbase, India in 2009.

THE FIRST of the three AWACS from Israel delivered to Agra airbase, India in 2009. Photo: REUTERS

 by Noah Beck

Both countries are homelands for ancient peoples who gained their independence from the British in the 1940s.

Both states have gone on to create vibrant, multicultural democracies that have experienced dynamic, technologydriven economic growth. India and Israel each also have a large Muslim minority population, and each faces an ongoing terrorism threat from foreign and domestic Islamic extremists; indeed, both Israelis and Indians were targeted and killed in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Even more serious, India and Israel each face ballistic missile threats from at least one close, hostile Muslim state.

India already faces the nuclear threat posed by Pakistan, and Israel may soon confront the same threat from Iran.

There is also a blossoming military and commercial relationship between India and Israel. Israel is India’s second largest arms supplier after Russia, and Israeli-Indian military cooperation extends to technology upgrades, joint research, intelligence cooperation and even space (in 2008, India launched a 300-kilogram Israeli satellite into orbit). Israel has upgraded India’s Soviet-era armor and aircraft and provided India with sea-to-sea missiles, radar and other surveillance systems, border monitoring equipment, night vision devices, and other military support.

Bilateral trade reached $6 billion last year and negotiations began this year for a free trade agreement.

Israel-India cooperation in agriculture and water technology is growing both through government-sponsored initiatives and private business deals.

Last year, Israeli and Indian government institutions jointly launched an online network that provides real-time communications between Indian farmers and Israeli agricultural technology experts, and Israel is in the process of setting up 28 agricultural training centers throughout India.

[........]

Last June, a delegation of 16 high-ranking Indian officials from the water authorities of Rajasthan, Karnataka, Goa and Haryana traveled to Israel to visit wastewater treatment plants and meet with some of Israel’s leading environmentalists and agronomists to learn about the desert country’s newest green technologies.

Tata Industries, the multi-billion- dollar Indian company, recently invested $5 million to kick-start the Technology Innovation Momentum Fund at Tel Aviv University’s Ramot technology transfer company. Tata Industries hopes to capitalize on future Israeli innovation, like the algorithm for error correction in flash memory (which is one of the patents filed by Ramot and now inside billions of dollars’ worth of SanDisk products).

[........] Such a synergistic relationship is unsurprising, given the historically harmonious relations between the peoples of Israel and India.

Judaism was one of the first foreign religions to come to India: the Cochin Jews arrived about 2,500 years ago and settled in the city of Kerala, where they flourished as traders. In addition to the few thousand Jews who live in major Indian cities like Mumbai, there are also some larger Indian communities, like the 8,000 “Bnai Menashe” (from the northeastern Indian states of Mizoram and Manipur) who claim descent from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. While Jews have always been a minuscule religious minority in India, they have historically encountered very little anti-Semitism.

In Israel, about 1% of the Jewish population has Indian ancestry.

In addition to the many historic and economic reasons for India and Israel to strengthen their ties, there are also strong geopolitical motivators. Israel’s tiny land mass (about 21,000 square kilometers) makes the Jewish state particularly vulnerable and compels it to make strategic use of seaborne offensive and defensive military capabilities. A vital component of those capabilities is Israel’s submarine force, which requires friendly waters in which to deploy and maintain such a force – something that the Indian Navy can provide with its dominance of South Asian waters.

With the ongoing security threats posed by India’s nuclear-armed rival, Pakistan, the Kashmir conflict (which recently claimed the lives of five Indian soldiers), and potential conflict with the other Asian heavyweight, China, India needs the kind of military edge that Israel can help it to obtain. [........]

One area where India could deepen its alliance with both Israel and the US is on the issue of Iran. India, the second largest importer of Iranian crude oil after China, won its third 180-day waiver from US sanctions last June after reducing its oil purchases from Iran.

But in 2012, Iran and India agreed to trade in rupees for shipments of oil, rice, sugar and soybeans, to circumvent US financial sanctions on Iranian oil shipments. And Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals is now reportedly receiving a cargo of Iranian crude, after a four-month hiatus, with Hindostan Petroleum also restarting imports soon.  [.........]

While India has its own commercial interests, India also has a strong interest in a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue. India’s economic and diplomatic clout can help to pressure Iran into a compromise that prevents a catastrophic Middle East war.  [.........]

India’s history of religious tolerance stands in stark contrast to that of Iran. Since Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has been regarded as one of the world’s worst offenders against freedom of religion.

Iran’s vicious human rights abuses and undemocratic political system are also well known. Would India want such a country to have nuclear weapons? Isn’t Pakistan enough? As a responsible member of the nuclear club, a fellow democracy and one of the greatest rising world powers, India should approach the Iranian nuclear issue as an opportunity to demonstrate how growing Indian clout can promote global security and curb extremist, undemocratic regimes like the Islamic Republic.

By deepening India’s ties with other innovative and economically advanced democracies like the United States and Israel, India can better secure its own interests and position itself for continued growth and leadership in a more stable world

Read the rest – India and Israel’s strategic ties

 

Tags:

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

81 Responses to “Israel and India’s strategic ties”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | August 23, 2013 9:04 am

    This video is very interesting. On the left allegedly it’s ISIS leader al-Baghdadi, in the center is the leader of the “moderate” Free Syrian Army and on the Right it’s allegedly al-Gulani leader of al-Nusra.

    They claim gloves are coming off and the rebels will now use Chemical weapons.

    It’s going to get nasty.


  2. rain of lead
    2 | August 23, 2013 9:12 am

    related

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/will-life-in-syria-turn-nastier-more-brutal-and-shorter/

    france (?wtf?) is leading the call for intervention

    As Western powers pressed Syria to allow United Nations inspectors to examine the site of a possible poison gas attack outside the capital, Damascus, France said on Thursday that outside powers should respond “with force” if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed.


  3. rain of lead
    3 | August 23, 2013 9:15 am

    It’s hell in Syria, but Uncle Sam isn’t going to come riding to the rescue

    So exactly one year after President Obama declared that he would draw his red line in Syria at the use of chemical weapons, and only two months after concluding that they had indeed been deployed, the message being sent to Assad could not be clearer: do as you please. There is no one to stop you, or even dig up the bodies.

    Yesterday, the UN Security Council called not for an investigation, but for “clarity”, as though rows of dead children with cold limbs and foaming mouths were not clear enough. This was a veritable diplomatic excretion, not even reaching the pathetic level of a non-binding statement. Chemical weapons are most effective in large quantities against unprotected opponents. Assad previously seemed to be conducting small attacks, under some imagined threshold but also limited in military utility. But those gloves now seem to be off.


  4. 4 | August 23, 2013 9:16 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    They claim gloves are coming off and the rebels will now use Chemical weapons.

    I question whether they actually have chemical weapons and if they do have them if they know how to use them. IT is more than just pouring them out on the ground, after all. To be used effectively, nerve gas needs to be aresolized in some form or matter. While theoretically you could load up a crop-duster with the shit and fly over the enemy’s front, in practice such a cavalier use of the weapons would probably kill off the people trying to use them. I also doubt seriously that al Nusra could use such weapons on a given front, and not kill as many of their troops as they kill of Assad’s. I would guess that the Syrian Army has some training in how to operate in a chemical environment, but I doubt that the “Free Syrian Army” (let alone al Nusra) has been able to implement any kind of training program for operating in a chemical environment. Little mistakes are easy to make when you haven’t been properly trained, and in a chemical enviroment little mistakes are fatal mistakes.


  5. rain of lead
    5 | August 23, 2013 9:17 am

    just to be clear
    I don’t feel we need to do anything other than stand back and watch


  6. 6 | August 23, 2013 9:21 am

    @ rain of lead:

    And if France wants to intervene, there is nothing that we should do to stop them, but we also should not support them. The Syrian civil war is none of our affair. Neither side are the “good guys”. I’m really not sure that Assad isn’t frankly prefferable to al Qaeda in Syria. We know Assad won’t give his chemical weapons to terrorists, or at least that he hasn’t done so to date. We have no such assurances from al Qaeda in Syria, should they be victorious in Syria. But Bashar Assad is not our friend, notr is he, as Pelosie Galore said, a “reformer”. We should just say a pox on both their houses, and stay out of it.


  7. 7 | August 23, 2013 9:24 am

    @ rain of lead:

    Exactly. We have nothing to gain by interferring, and much to lose. Obama was foolish to draw a “red line” at chemical weapons. Not that I want to see them used, but I don’t see how that should pull us into this conflict to begin with. Obama’s foreign policy is the worst foreign policy that we have ever fielded. Worse even than LBJ’s who escalated the Vietnam War.


  8. Speranza
    8 | August 23, 2013 9:27 am

    rain of lead wrote:

    just to be clear
    I don’t feel we need to do anything other than stand back and watch

    Quite concur!


  9. Speranza
    9 | August 23, 2013 9:28 am

    @ Goldwaterite:
    Target rich environment.


  10. Speranza
    10 | August 23, 2013 9:31 am

    At least 27 dead in explosions near Tripoli, Lebanon, mosques

    (CNN) — Two powerful explosions ripped through neighborhoods near mosques in the northern Lebanon city of Tripoli Friday. At least 27 people died and more than 400 were wounded, according to the health ministry.

    Heavy gunfire was heard following the blasts, Tripoli residents told CNN.

    The Lebanese army said it had established a security cordon around the blast sites. The bombs caused “great material damage” in addition to the casualties, the army said.

    The first blast occurred near al Taqwa mosque, which is led by a Sunni sheikh known for his links to Syrian rebels, Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency said.

    The second, which occurred minutes later, happened near al Salam mosque, close to the residence of Prime Minister Najib Mikati, as well as Samir Al-Jisr, a Sunni member of parliament and the former head of the country’s Internal Security Forces, Ashraf Rifi.

    Rifi is despised by Hezbollah and Lebanese politicians friendly to Syrian President Bashar al Assad.

    It was unclear if any of those figures were targets of the attack, but NNA said two Salafist sheikhs believed possible targets of the blasts were unharmed in the explosions.

    Mikati is not in Tripoli, NNA reported.

    The second blast produced a crater 5 meters (16.4 feet) across and caused damage to six nearby residential buildings, according to NNA. More than 60 cars were incinerated, the news agency said.


  11. rain of lead
    11 | August 23, 2013 9:32 am

    too bad Obama isn’t as smart as bugs


  12. 12 | August 23, 2013 9:33 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    My big question is, why did not a Cruise Missile hit where these guys were. You had al-Baghdadi there (on the Left) who killed Americans in Iraq. This was such a target.


  13. 13 | August 23, 2013 9:34 am

    @ Speranza:

    Hezbollah retaliation for the Beirut bombings.


  14. 14 | August 23, 2013 9:35 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I also doubt seriously that al Nusra could use such weapons on a given front, and not kill as many of their troops as they kill of

    The core of Nusra are ex Syrian soldiers, they might know how to use chemical weapons. They proved they can used the SA-8 Gecko.


  15. yenta-fada
    15 | August 23, 2013 9:41 am

    I’m not sure if I am remembering correctly, but didn’t NATO, urged by France lead the campaign to remove Ghaddafi in Libya? That was the war that never happened according to democrats since Ozero won the Nobel Peace Prize. Are they trying to do the same in Syria? It’s not going to work. Libya was more or less stable. Syria is a hot mess.


  16. Speranza
    16 | August 23, 2013 9:43 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Hezbollah retaliation for the Beirut bombings.

    It seems that way.


  17. yenta-fada
    17 | August 23, 2013 9:43 am

    @ yenta-fada:

    That was in reply to ROL’s #2 post. No sleep makes commenting a little…random.


  18. yenta-fada
    18 | August 23, 2013 9:45 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Goldwaterite wrote:
    @ Speranza:
    Hezbollah retaliation for the Beirut bombings.
    It seems that way.


  19. 19 | August 23, 2013 9:46 am

    @ Speranza:

    This is good, al-Qaeda will retaliate.


  20. yenta-fada
    20 | August 23, 2013 9:47 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ rain of lead:
    Exactly. We have nothing to gain by interferring, and much to lose. Obama was foolish to draw a “red line” at chemical weapons. Not that I want to see them used, but I don’t see how that should pull us into this conflict to begin with. Obama’s foreign policy is the worst foreign policy that we have ever fielded. Worse even than LBJ’s who escalated the Vietnam War.

    CNN showed an interview w/ the Wonder Boy this morning. He was blathering about Sasha, Malia, and the dogs. It’s all about him.


  21. Speranza
    21 | August 23, 2013 9:48 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    This is good, al-Qaeda will retaliate.

    I don’t like seeing civilians killed even if they are Arabs but these are the same people who applaud terror attacks on Jews and Christians.


  22. Speranza
    22 | August 23, 2013 9:49 am

    yenta-fada wrote:

    CNN showed an interview w/ the Wonder Boy this morning. He was blathering about Sasha, Malia, and the dogs. It’s all about him.

    I would rather he be on the golf course all day, every day. He does less damage there.


  23. Speranza
    23 | August 23, 2013 9:50 am

    yenta-fada wrote:

    I’m not sure if I am remembering correctly, but didn’t NATO, urged by France lead the campaign to remove Ghaddafi in Libya? That was the war that never happened according to democrats since Ozero won the Nobel Peace Prize. Are they trying to do the same in Syria? It’s not going to work. Libya was more or less stable. Syria is a hot mess.

    Yes the French were out front urging intervention against Gaddafi. Funny, they never felt any remorse for all the weaponry (starting in 1969) that they sold him.


  24. yenta-fada
    24 | August 23, 2013 9:50 am

    Speranza wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:
    CNN showed an interview w/ the Wonder Boy this morning. He was blathering about Sasha, Malia, and the dogs. It’s all about him.
    I would rather he be on the golf course all day, every day. He does less damage there.

    The whole admin copies fearless leader.

    WHERE IN THE WORLD IS SAMANTHA POWER? -- UN Ambassador Samantha Power was on a personal trip when she missed this week’s emergency Security Council meeting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, U.N. diplomats have told Fox News. Power, who tweeted a call for U.N. action after news broke of the gas attack and has long advocated military intervention in the ongoing Syrian civil war, was said to be in a location where no travel arrangements could be made.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/23/power-missed-syria-session-for-personal-trip/#ixzz2cnfFBZ9u


  25. Speranza
    25 | August 23, 2013 9:55 am

    @ yenta-fada:
    Another one who probably would do a lot of damage if she was actually on her job. She is probably on vacation along with Chaz Freeman planning the invasion of Israel.


  26. 26 | August 23, 2013 9:55 am

    yenta-fada wrote:

    WHERE IN THE WORLD HELL IS SAMANTHA POWER? —

    There, fixed that for ya!


  27. 27 | August 23, 2013 9:59 am

    yenta-fada wrote:

    UN Ambassador Samantha Power was on a personal trip when she missed this week’s emergency Security Council meeting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria

    She’s showing not just where her priorities are, but where the whole Administration’s priorities are. You can’t let the little things get in the way of your vacations, after all. It is no wonder that Russia won’t follow our lead on Iran, let alone Syria. Our “leadership” is MIA fo rforeign policy across the board. I doubt seriously that you could find another Administration that was more incompetant in the history of the United States.


  28. yenta-fada
    28 | August 23, 2013 9:59 am

    Macker wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:
    WHERE IN THE WORLD HELL IS SAMANTHA POWER? —
    There, fixed that for ya!

    Thanx. lol


  29. 29 | August 23, 2013 10:02 am

    Sighns of a betrayal.


  30. yenta-fada
    30 | August 23, 2013 10:02 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:
    UN Ambassador Samantha Power was on a personal trip when she missed this week’s emergency Security Council meeting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria
    She’s showing not just where her priorities are, but where the whole Administration’s priorities are. You can’t let the little things get in the way of your vacations, after all. It is no wonder that Russia won’t follow our lead on Iran, let alone Syria. Our “leadership” is MIA fo rforeign policy across the board. I doubt seriously that you could find another Administration that was more incompetant in the history of the United States.

    They think Chicago politics and tactics. They don’t ‘get’ other nations unless it is the drive towards Communism. Valjar running the place? Seriously, there’s complete tunnel vision and a one trick pony
    they are riding imho.


  31. 31 | August 23, 2013 10:19 am

    yenta-fada wrote:

    UN Ambassador Samantha Power was on a personal trip when she missed this week’s emergency Security Council meeting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria,

    She missed the meeting because the story is Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda propaganda and she knew it. No need to attend a emergency meeting when there is no actual emergency.


  32. 32 | August 23, 2013 10:23 am

    @ yenta-fada:

    It is truly distressing. The Obama Administration brings new meaning to incompetance. They make the Buchannan Administration look like a bunch of geniuses. Yeah, Buchannan didn’t do much to stop the Civil War, but Obama has us on the battlefield fighting for al Qaeda in Libya, has ddestroyed our alliance with Egypt, and now wants to get us in a war with Chemical Weapons on the battlefield in Syria. Not to mention letting Iran get nukes. I don’t think you can lay the entire Civil War at Buchannan’s feet, either. He was in a really tough position, and cose mostly to punt. IIRC, he did transfer some weapons to the South right at the end of his Presidency, which still wouldn’t have been as bad as Obama’s giving SAMs to al Qaeda in Syria if that was what was going on in Benghazi.


  33. 33 | August 23, 2013 10:25 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    No need to attend a emergency meeting when there is no actual emergency.

    There is if you want to be a leader in the world. If you are right (and you probably are), Powers should have been there ti express the fact that we didn’t see this as an emergency, and that it was just propaganda from al Qaeda in Syria. But that would have been real leadership, and that is the last thing we should expect from this Administration.


  34. huckfunn
    34 | August 23, 2013 10:25 am

    Fox is reporting that an arrest has been made in the beating death of the WWII vet known as Shorty.


  35. yenta-fada
    35 | August 23, 2013 10:26 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:
    UN Ambassador Samantha Power was on a personal trip when she missed this week’s emergency Security Council meeting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria,
    She missed the meeting because the story is Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda propaganda and she knew it. No need to attend a emergency meeting when there is no actual emergency.

    Highly likely. Although there’s a good case to be made for ‘doesn’t give a crap’.


  36. Speranza
    36 | August 23, 2013 10:28 am

    Rodan and I always talk about how lucky we and the rest of the free world are that there is no longer a Soviet Union with a Brezhnev or Khruschev (or God forbid a Stalin) at its head having to face off with an Obama/Kerry/Hagel/Rice/Clapper/Brennan/Power foreign/defense/intelligence policy team.


  37. Speranza
    37 | August 23, 2013 10:30 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    Fox is reporting that an arrest has been made in the beating death of the WWII vet known as Shorty.

    Obama of course will not comment.


  38. 38 | August 23, 2013 10:31 am

    @ Speranza:

    If our enemies were competant, they’d have beaten us long ago. But relying on your enemies to be incompetant isn’t a plan. Sooner or later the Muslim world is bound to scrape together some competance, and then we are screwed.


  39. 39 | August 23, 2013 10:35 am

    @ doriangrey:
    @ Iron Fist:

    I am as anti-AQ/MB as anyone and they are right this time. Assad did use chemical weapons because Nusra/FSA broke through some defenses in Eastern Damascus. The Syrian Army panicked and used chemical agents to stop the breakthrough. This is the real deal and Assad did use agents. But that said, I don’t give a shit.


  40. huckfunn
    40 | August 23, 2013 10:36 am

    Speranza wrote:

    huckfunn wrote:

    Fox is reporting that an arrest has been made in the beating death of the WWII vet known as Shorty.

    Obama of course will not comment.

    That’s right. There is no political advantage to him in either the OK murder or the Spokane murder.


  41. 41 | August 23, 2013 10:37 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Sooner or later the Muslim world is bound to scrape together some competance, and then we are screwed.

    That is why I am studying and following Nusra. What I am seeing from them is something I have not seen from any Arab force. They can actually fight in the open and are competent. The FSA and ISIS are jokesters. The Hezzies even admitted that Nusra was the most formidable foe they have faced. Keep in mind the Hezzies have fought with Israel and Serbs.

    Nusra will be more deadly than al-Qaeda or Hezbollah ever were.


  42. 42 | August 23, 2013 10:43 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    That’s right. There is no political advantage to him in either the OK murder or the Spokane murder.

    That article gave me a bit of a fright, I have a Step-Grandfather (my step-fathers step-father) that lives up in that general area, his nickname (hell the only name I know him by) is “Shorty”. He has a different last name though, and to my knowledge was never a WWII vet.


  43. 43 | August 23, 2013 10:45 am

    @ doriangrey:

    Damn.


  44. yenta-fada
    44 | August 23, 2013 10:47 am

    OT Cost to NYC taxpayers per prison inmate per year; $167,000

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nyc_prisons_gilded_cages_EDFG3OkjCXbAfOhiMD0lAI


  45. spinmore
    45 | August 23, 2013 10:49 am

    @ huckfunn:
    @ Speranza:
    Godspeed Shorty
    . . . burn in hell, thugs.


  46. 46 | August 23, 2013 10:51 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    Damn.

    Yea, and he’s right around that age. Retired Highway construction worker though.


  47. Speranza
    47 | August 23, 2013 10:51 am

    Mr. Obama needn’t do virtuous things; he himself is virtuous.”

    Fouad Ajami


  48. Speranza
    48 | August 23, 2013 10:53 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    If our enemies were competant, they’d have beaten us long ago. But relying on your enemies to be incompetant isn’t a plan. Sooner or later the Muslim world is bound to scrape together some competance, and then we are screwed.

    Yeah I too fear that eventually, like the Red Army in World War II, they will learn the art of conventional war.


  49. 49 | August 23, 2013 10:57 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Sooner or later the Muslim world is bound to scrape together some competance, and then we are screwed.

    I will refer you to The Belmont Clubs “The Three Conjecture” to ponder after that statement.

    At this point, a United States choked with corpses could still not negotiate an end to hostilities or deter further attacks. There would be no one to call on the Red Telephone, even to surrender to. In fact, there exists no competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world. Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions. Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange by entering -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination.


  50. 50 | August 23, 2013 10:57 am

    @ Speranza:

    That is why we need to keep an eye on Nusra.


  51. 51 | August 23, 2013 10:59 am

    @ doriangrey:

    the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination.

    It will be Russia or China that will do it. Our leaders don’t have the balls to do it.


  52. 52 | August 23, 2013 11:00 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    Our leaders don’t have the balls to do it.

    Well certainly not the ones we have right now… I could certainly see a President Palin or Cruz doing it though.


  53. spinmore
    53 | August 23, 2013 11:03 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    Goldwaterite wrote:
    Our leaders don’t have the balls to do it.
    Well certainly not the ones we have right now… I could certainly see a President Palin or Cruz doing it though.

    . . . you could prob add LTC West


  54. 54 | August 23, 2013 11:05 am

    @ spinmore:
    @ doriangrey:

    West is the only one I can see.


  55. Speranza
    55 | August 23, 2013 11:18 am

    A nation that twice voted for Barack Obama and recently rejected a moderate, reasonable,qualified and competent Mitt Romney -- what makes any one else think that it would flock to a Sarah Palin (two years as governor), Ted Cruz (two years as Senator), or Allen West (two years as congressman)? I am serious. Unless you are buying into the b.s. that millions of conservatives sat it out last year. Obama won last time with 39% of the white vote and that will not happen again if Hilary is the nominee so the GOP has to find votes elsewhere so that means that yes they need non white voters. Many Romney voters were disaffected Clintonites and you know who they will vote for in 2016 when Hilary runs.


  56. spinmore
    56 | August 23, 2013 11:26 am

    @ Speranza:
    Leadership like A.West would only have a chance nationally during a complete ‘melt-down’ scenario (imho)

    even then, he would need to be heard despite all attempts to filter him out. Easier said then done


  57. Speranza
    57 | August 23, 2013 11:29 am

    spinmore wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Leadership like A.West would only have a chance nationally during a complete ‘melt-down’ scenario (imho)
    even then, he would need to be heard despite all attempts to filter him out. Easier said then done

    He needed to have won re-election but now he is just a former one term congressman who appears on Fox a lot (Hannity and Greta). Too bad because he is a man of honor.


  58. 58 | August 23, 2013 11:31 am

    @ Speranza:

    How abou tmore like we believe that if you had someone running that was willing to actually fight we would stand a better chance than running someone who wants to lose well? Romney could have won, I believe, even though Obama is the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT (another advantage that will be lost in 2016). He’d have had to repudiate RomneyCare, though, and gone on the attack about ObamaCare, and he adamantly refused to do that. Romney thought that all he’d have to do to win was not be Barack Obama. That is what his high-paid consultants told him. And that was wrong. Obama lost 7 million votes from 2008 to 2012, but Romney didn’t pick any of them up. Romney didn’t give these people any reason to vote for him. In fact, he never made the case that Obama was a bad President, let alone the worst President in American history. You have to fight to win, and Romney wasn’t interested in that.


  59. 59 | August 23, 2013 11:35 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Where will Republicans get the votes needed to win?


  60. spinmore
    60 | August 23, 2013 11:36 am

    @ Speranza:
    isn’t it true that the Rs re-districted him out of a 2nd win?

    does anyone here know more about the details of that?


  61. 61 | August 23, 2013 11:39 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Romney thought that all he’d have to do to win was not be Barack Obama.

    His consultants were not interested in victory either. They just wanted a paycheck.


  62. 62 | August 23, 2013 11:40 am

    spinmore wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    isn’t it true that the Rs re-districted him out of a 2nd win?
    does anyone here know more about the details of that?

    They screwed him over to shore up other more connected Republicans.


  63. 63 | August 23, 2013 11:42 am

    @ Goldwaterite:

    I don’t know. If I could tell you that, I’d be one of those highly paid consultants. YOu tell me Catholics will vote for the anti-Catholic party, Jews vote for the anti-Semitic Party, and blacks vote nearly in lockstep for the party of Slavery and Segregation. When you have that kind of shit going on, you have to first acknowledge that the electorate is insane. I think for one thing we could take the gloves off and call the Democrats all of these things. Point out that Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, and give the people the reasons that that is such a bad idea. To win a Presidential election, you have to secure your base and then pull from the middle. In that order. Having a candidate that really believes in our platform and articulates it is the first place to start. YOU don’t really have to move that much of the vote. Pull a couple of percentage points out of the squishy middle and the Republican wins. Having an articulate defender of our principles might just be enough to do that.


  64. 64 | August 23, 2013 11:47 am

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    His consultants were not interested in victory either. They just wanted a paycheck.

    I don’t disagree with you there. The same was true of the whole McCain campaign. Sarah Palin was the only person on that ticket that really wanted to win. I will submit to you that having a candidate that wants to win can make a difference. I think Romney might very well have won if he’d have repudiated RomneyCare and attacked firmly on ObamaCare. ObamaCare is consistently disliked by strong margins in everybody’s polling. If Romney had made his campaign about repeal, he might very well have gotten enough votes from the 7 million Obama voters that stayed home to win the race. You don’t have to take the whole Democrat base to win. You have to shave a couple of points in the right States to win. That is a doable task, but we’ll have to see who we nominate before we’ll know if that is possible this go-around.


  65. 65 | August 23, 2013 11:55 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    This is where we agree:

    I think for one thing we could take the gloves off and call the Democrats all of these things.

    You have to fight without mercy and ruthlessness.

    This is where we disagree:

    To win a Presidential election, you have to secure your base and then pull from the middle. In that order. Having a candidate that really believes in our platform and articulates it is the first place to start.

    I find the GOP base becoming very doctrinaire and demand purity from Republican candidates. This forces Republicans to engage in red meat rhetoric that while popular with the base, is a turn off to the electorate at large.

    The platform is NOT popular with the electorate. Libertarianism should be the direction the GOP moves in. That can win new voters over. Conservatism in its current form is not too popular with American voters. The GOP really needs to update itself for the 21st Century. Times have changed and and to win, you need to be able to relate with the electorate.


  66. 66 | August 23, 2013 11:58 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    We can argue all day on what Romney could have done, but the truth is the GOP Consultants get paid no matter if they win or lose. This needs to change. People like Rove, Stuart Stevens and Steve Schmidt need to be shunned.

    Honestly the GOP has many problems and I don’t see them trying to fix their problems.


  67. waldensianspirit
    67 | August 23, 2013 12:00 pm

    Getting rid of the ‘base’ is such a wise decision. So much better not having the American taxpayer on your side


  68. 68 | August 23, 2013 12:05 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    Libertarianism should be the direction the GOP moves in.

    This is where we’ll have to disagree. Unless and until Libertarianism reforms itself on foreign policy, it will not be a serious party. Notice that even Rand Paul has distenced himself from the LLibertarians on the question of Israel. I think he has done the same on Iranian nukes, but I don’t have a source handy. In any event, allowing Iran to get atomic weapons is suicide for the West. I’ll also point out that the GOP that you so despise happens to be the same GOP that has a majority of the State Houses and Covernorships, not to mention the House of Representatives. I think we very well might have won last year if Romney had taken on ObamaCare as part of his strategy. ObamaCare was the best weapon that we had against Obama. Unfortunately, the debt problem is tooarcane for the bulk of the voters. Everybody knows that when you are borrowing on MasterCard to pay the interest on your Visa that you are bankrupt. Everybody “knows” that, but seems oblivious to that being the case when we have to raise the debt ceiling in order not to go into default. This is another area, though, that I think the right leader could exploit.


  69. 69 | August 23, 2013 12:08 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    The “base” are not the only ones who pay taxes. There are some in the base who are on government assistance. I am not part of the “base” and pay taxes.


  70. 70 | August 23, 2013 12:12 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Most Libertarians would have no problem bombing Iran. We just do not want anymore nation building nor getting ourselves involved in every conflict. Reagan and Eisenhower would have appalled at today’s GOP obsession with nation building.


  71. 71 | August 23, 2013 12:14 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    Nevertheless, getting rid of your base is a stupid thing to do. If you want to win you secure your base and then pull from the middle. You don’t do that by trying to be Democrat-lite. Obama ran a base campaign, and he won. Obama practically told the moderate middle to go fuck themselves, but he is still the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT. That fact is part of what kept the 7 milion voters home that voted for him in 2008. They couldn’t bring themselves to pull the lever against the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT, lest they be called racists. If you want to look at strategies for winning in 2016, figuring out why we lost those voters. They were clearly disenchanted with the Chicago Jesus®, but refused to vote against him. Tapping into those votes woudl be sufficient to get us the White House.


  72. 72 | August 23, 2013 12:20 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Nevertheless, getting rid of your base is a stupid thing to do. If you want to win you secure your base and then pull from the middle. You don’t do that by trying to be Democrat-lite.

    That is all the GOP has done since 92. They wipe the ass of the base with their tongues. The non Base Republicans are treated like shit and treated like unwanted step kids.

    Is this what the base wants the GOP to do?


  73. 73 | August 23, 2013 12:22 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    If you want to look at strategies for winning in 2016, figuring out why we lost those voters. They were clearly disenchanted with the Chicago Jesus®, but refused to vote against him. Tapping into those votes woudl be sufficient to get us the White House.

    I agree with you there. But will this Base allow the GOP to do so?


  74. 74 | August 23, 2013 12:32 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    Depends on what they want to change on. If the Republicans start supporting gun control and abortion these people will sit at home. Spending is killing us, but realistically there is simply not the will on the part of the people to reign in spending. Everybody wants to cut pork, but everybody wants to still get their pork. We may still be abole to run on repeal of ObamaCare, though, in 2016. ObamaCare is unpopular, and it will get a lot more unpopular as it phases in. My question for you, though, is how do you expect to win a Presidential election without you base? And what is it you’d have the Republican Party “moderate” itself on? Those issues will be key as to saying whether the base will support the nominee or not. It isn’t enough to ask where they will go. All they have to do is stay home.


  75. 75 | August 23, 2013 12:43 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    My question for you, though, is how do you expect to win a Presidential election without you base?

    The Base needs to realize that they have to be part of a Coalition to win. The base needs to stop thinking they are special or deserve to be treated like royalty and realize they need allies.

    And what is it you’d have the Republican Party “moderate” itself on?

    Instead of pushing for an absolute ban on abortion even in the case of rape, call for a state by state 20 week ban.

    Reject nation building and go back to the foreign policy of Eisenhower and Reagan, Peace through strength.

    Support Marijuana Legalization and reform drug laws.

    Gay Marriage is a state issue

    Economic policies that benefit the Middle Class.

    This is just a start.


  76. 76 | August 23, 2013 12:55 pm

    Goldwaterite wrote:

    Economic policies that benefit the Middle Class.

    Everybody, even Obama, calls for this. What do you concretely mean by it? Low taxes? That is a base issue. Gay marriage? That isn’t necessarily a bridge too far, but it is really pushing it. After all, it isn’t going to end at gays. I don’t see how you can legally not recognize polygamous marriages if you accept gay marriage. Marijuna legislation? Doubtful. There really isn’t enough call for that. It is a non-issue, really.
    Asd for abortion, the 20 week ban is a no brainer. Radicals like that Davis chick in Texas are really ppro-infanticide. In Europe it is 12 weeks. I don’t see why we have to be more leniant on infanticide as Europe. The Left are always telling us to be more like Europe. Here’s an issue that I can see that on.

    Peace through strength? If that is really an issue for you, then voting Democrat seems to be counter-productive. Sure, I’ll go along with no more nation building, but if we are to be a World Leader, we have to actually lead. Leading from behind, as Obama so famously put it, really means you are at the back of the pack.

    Again, if you objectively look at it, the base is with you on many of your issues. We are even open to persuasion, if you have a leader who articulates his position well. That last is key, though. I fwe really want to win, we have to elect someone in the primary who will champion our causes, not try to distance himself from them.


  77. darkwords
    77 | August 23, 2013 2:15 pm

    @ 58 Iron Fist: Romney was a day late and a dollar short. But the Obama camp assured him he was on time and the Romney camp listened to them.


  78. darkwords
    78 | August 23, 2013 2:16 pm

    @ Goldwaterite: Rand Paul knows where to go get the votes. As does Ted Cruz.


  79. darkwords
    79 | August 23, 2013 2:23 pm

    @ 65 Goldwaterite: secure the base by:
    1. Float the idea of eliminating the IRS, the NSA(not for real), DHS, and the education department.
    2. Go pro choice on Abortion, but include education about when life begins. And do make it illegal after a reasonable time period that the majority of women agree to.
    3. Walk away from the gay marriage issue and leave it completely to the states.
    4. Go Pro choice on pot. Education, penalities for misue. End the drug war.
    5. national voter ID.
    6. Give better benefits to illegal immigrants than the dems. But bring along a patriotic message and family values. Send them home wiser, or keep them here conservatively.
    7. Treat the vets better.
    8. Safety net for kids and old folks.
    9. Define what racism really is.


  80. Speranza
    80 | August 23, 2013 4:01 pm

    spinmore wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    isn’t it true that the Rs re-districted him out of a 2nd win?
    does anyone here know more about the details of that?

    I think that is what happened.


  81. Speranza
    81 | August 23, 2013 4:04 pm

    The subject matter of this thread was very iteresting. Too bad there was not even one comment on it.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David