Modi Probably The Strongest Indian Leader - Senator John McCain

[Naina_Marbus]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Narendra Modi Probably The Strongest Indian Leader I've Seen – Senator John McCain

In his remarks before the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Senator John McCain, the 2008 presidential candidate, said the United States needs to have more co-operation with India.

McCain said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is probably the strongest Indian leader to have emerged in his lifetime and asserted that the US needs to have more cooperation with India.

"I'm incredibly impressed with the new leader. Mr Modi is probably the strongest leader that I have seen emerge in India, certainly in our lifetimes," Senator McCain said on Tuesday (31 March 2015).

"I believe one of the great long-term challenges we have is to maintain significant influence in the Asia-Pacific region. And we have to do things like look to India for more co-operation," the senior US Republican senator said.

 

[sarang]

More important, he is a nationalist leader, who will not sell the country to forces hostile to hindus. The concerted effort of christian west and ROP will be thwarted by steady and focused actions.

Indian media is getting exposed every day for its inimical agenda and distortion of events; the church coerced reibero and kumar are getting a well deserved drubbing from all sides.

 

[cmano1981]

It is Modi's talent and India's luck that we have one strong leader to represent India probably after Indira Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi was getting matured when he got killed - had lot of talent and using the open world economy. Some others like Narasimha Rao silently delivered things but can never come under strong category to face tough western nations and their agendas. He should use his power to do few big things like bringing Kashmir issue to an end, cleanliness and Hygiene atleast part of India etc. Education is another thing to focus - it is sad teachers profession is the last thing one wants to go in India (I may be wrong, but that is what I see), but in other countries I have seen people passionately enter education or teaching field to make impact on kids lives... that is one area to look at.

 

[prasad1]

McCain praising Mody is good.
I do not know how many people know John MCCain in India.
He is the one who Wants to bomb Iran in support of Israel, he took USA to war in Iraq.

McCain's war talk is part of an effort to normalize the idea of military attacks on Iran as Plan B if Congress torpedoes diplomacy. Legislation like the soon-to-be debated Corker-Menendez bill could create a Congressional veto of nuclear negotiations with Iran. It is anyone's guess what comes after such a veto. But a good indication of Senate hawks' future plans is always what neoconservative think tanks are saying in the nation's leading papers today.
Yep, the hawks' vision for Iran sure sounds ludicrous. But their vision of Americans being greeted as liberators by cheering Iraqis with sweets and flowers was equally ludicrous. A decade later we're still dealing with the tragic fall-out of chasing after that particular pipe-dream. That's why Congress needs to resist the tough-on-Iran rhetoric and give diplomacy a chance. In rejecting diplomacy, the Republicans make an Iranian bomb and military conflict more likely.

So be careful in choosing the person you sleep with (?).

See all his misadventures of John McCain:
Map: All the Countries John McCain Has Wanted to Attack | Mother Jones

 

[Vaagmi]

McCain praising Mody is good.
I do not know how many people know John MCCain in India.
He is the one who Wants to bomb Iran in support of Israel, he took USA to war in Iraq.

McCain's war talk is part of an effort to normalize the idea of military attacks on Iran as Plan B if Congress torpedoes diplomacy. Legislation like the soon-to-be debated Corker-Menendez bill could create a Congressional veto of nuclear negotiations with Iran. It is anyone's guess what comes after such a veto. But a good indication of Senate hawks' future plans is always what neoconservative think tanks are saying in the nation's leading papers today.
Yep, the hawks' vision for Iran sure sounds ludicrous. But their vision of Americans being greeted as liberators by cheering Iraqis with sweets and flowers was equally ludicrous. A decade later we're still dealing with the tragic fall-out of chasing after that particular pipe-dream. That's why Congress needs to resist the tough-on-Iran rhetoric and give diplomacy a chance. In rejecting diplomacy, the Republicans make an Iranian bomb and military conflict more likely.

So be careful in choosing the person you sleep with (?).

See all his misadventures of John McCain:
Map: All the Countries John McCain Has Wanted to Attack | Mother Jones

Without going into the specifics, just a question to prasadji:

Diplomacy should not be rejected outright.

Diplomacy should not be torpedoed.

Diplomacy should be given a chance.

Yes.

But if and when diplomacy fails to deliver because of intransigence what are the options?

will force be legitimate then or not?

Please touch on this possibility too and answer this question.

History is replete with instances where weak-kneed leaders were hoping against hope that intransigence would come to an end. The glaring example was the rape of Poland by Germany.

The human civilization can not put up with any more nuclear proliferation. Period.

 

[prasad1]

Without going into the specifics, just a question to prasadji:



The human civilization can not put up with any more nuclear proliferation. Period.

The diplomacy has been torpedoed. USA has been drawn into war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and many more countries. With the loss of millions of human life and miseries. What was accomplished for USA?

I agree that Indira Gandhi's bold initiative in Bangladesh was successful for India. So your point of of making a winnable war is accepted.
But if USA had gone to war with Russia on annexation of Crimea, it would be a disaster. Going to war in Iraq has given rise to ISIS, and it was a blunder. Going to war in Iran will be even bigger mistake.

Who do you think should have attacked Germany when Poland was attacked? If there is another war between India and Pakistan which country will have the right to attack India? When India attacked Easy Pakistan, would you have supported USA attacking India?
The world has put with Nuclear Proliferation of China, India, Pakistan, and probably Israel. How

do you arbitrarily stop Iran from Using nuclear technology for peaceful(questionable) purpose. Is it worth fighting a nuclear war in Asia again?



Let us start a new thread about attacking preemptively a third country on flimsy grounds, particularly when we are not at war with them.

 

[Vaagmi]

1.The diplomacy has been torpedoed. USA has been drawn into war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and many more countries. With the loss of millions of human life and miseries. What was accomplished for USA?

I agree that Indira Gandhi's bold initiative in Bangladesh was successful for India. So your point of of making a winnable war is accepted.
2. But if USA had gone to war with Russia on annexation of Crimea, it would be a disaster. Going to war in Iraq has given rise to ISIS, and it was a blunder. Going to war in Iran will be even bigger mistake.

3. Who do you think should have attacked Germany when Poland was attacked? If there is another war between India and Pakistan which country will have the right to attack India? When India attacked Easy Pakistan, would you have supported USA attacking India?
4. The world has put with Nuclear Proliferation of China, India, Pakistan, and probably Israel. How do you arbitrarily stop Iran from Using nuclear technology for peaceful(questionable) purpose. Is it worth fighting a nuclear war in Asia again?

1. The war in vietnam was a different kind. There is no comparison with Afghan and Iraqi wars. The later two were responses to challenges. The challenges were to peace and tranquility. The Trade Center disaster had its origin deep in Afghanistan. And Kuwait suddenly disappeared from the world map thanks to Saddam Hussain Sahib. These two were challenges not only to US but also world order as we know it and peace and tranquility. the response was called for at the appropriate level of ferocity.

2. Ifs and buts can be discussed incessantly. ISIS is the result of several enabling factors only one being Iraq vacuum. If Iran were to possess nuclear weapons it will become a very very dangerous situation for the world because that part of the globe always stays very volatile.

3. Read history. The Great Britain which was the only super power at that time should have checked Hitler's expansionist dreams but it was not done because of a weak Prime Minister there at that time. That weakness was also the reason why Winston Churchill became the PM after him. There was a lot of dilly dallying and giving in to Hitler by the GB then. this is there in the history books recorded.

Why US did not come to the rescue of Pak by attacking India? Why China just made some threatening noises about Indian shepherds violating the LOC and stopped with that at that time? Think about it. You will get the answers. You will sure remember that silent but most efficient diplomat D.P.Dhar who delivered for India what no one else could.

4. For civilized societies with checks and balances in a practising democracy a nuclear war is a very tough decision. But for other kind of societies it is just another killing spree. so nuclear proliferation is dangerous as we are talking here about an apocalyptic disaster not just about carpet bombing.

 

[zebra16]

McCain praising Mody is good.
I do not know how many people know John MCCain in India.
He is the one who Wants to bomb Iran in support of Israel, he took USA to war in Iraq.

McCain's war talk is part of an effort to normalize the idea of military attacks on Iran as Plan B if Congress torpedoes diplomacy. Legislation like the soon-to-be debated Corker-Menendez bill could create a Congressional veto of nuclear negotiations with Iran. It is anyone's guess what comes after such a veto. But a good indication of Senate hawks' future plans is always what neoconservative think tanks are saying in the nation's leading papers today.
Yep, the hawks' vision for Iran sure sounds ludicrous. But their vision of Americans being greeted as liberators by cheering Iraqis with sweets and flowers was equally ludicrous. A decade later we're still dealing with the tragic fall-out of chasing after that particular pipe-dream. That's why Congress needs to resist the tough-on-Iran rhetoric and give diplomacy a chance. In rejecting diplomacy, the Republicans make an Iranian bomb and military conflict more likely.

So be careful in choosing the person you sleep with (?).

See all his misadventures of John McCain:
Map: All the Countries John McCain Has Wanted to Attack | Mother Jones

An old and tried method to discredit the messenger just because one does not like the message he delivered.

John Mccain secure 46% of the popular vote in the 2008 U S presidential election against Obama. He has considerable following and his opinion carry weight where it matters.

 

[prasad1]

McCain -- whom the poll cites as having “now become the least popular Senator in the country,” -- registers an approval rating of just 30 percent with Arizona voters. Fifty-four percent of respondents disapprove of the job the senator is doing, while 16 percent are not sure, according to the poll by the Democratic-aligned outfit.
McCain is unpopular across all political party affiliations, the survey says, scoring a weak 35 percent positive approval rating with fellow Republicans, against a 55 percent disapproval rating with GOP voters.

John McCain Now 'The Least Popular Senator In The Country,' According To Poll

A new poll suggests the state's senior senator may have worn out his welcome with Arizona voters. The statewide survey shows John McCain's popularity has dropped to the lowest level since the Behavior Research Center began asking about him in 2002. Only 26 percent of the 700 adult heads of households questioned earlier this month rate his performance as excellent or good.
Conversely, 36 percent say he is doing a poor or very poor job in office. This is the first time the survey has showed McCain's negative numbers exceeded his positives.
http://tucson.com/news/local/govt-a...cle_fc687d1f-4133-552b-b866-0ad9d3b4a0d2.html


Check with your colleagues for his records.
46% of vote during Presidential election, was for republican Party not personal popularity. You put XXXX as republican candidate or Democratic candidate you will get a similar spread.

The difference between presidential candidates is about 5-10% in popular vote in the post War years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin