India will be a dominant player in South Asia, Middle East

[TaimiKhan]

Taimi Sir..With all due respect Moderator doesn't mean that you cannot share your views...Heck we would love to see a meaningful discussion between you and Peshwa...This way people like me can learn a few things...As long as you both keep yourself cool and discuss with in the parameter of civization and forum rules i don't see a reason anyone will have a problem...So i would request you to kindly share your thoughts on this...

Peshwa sir i am sure you would be ready to counter Taimi's points

hahahahahhaahah, well he is already countering

actually he said dominant in all fields, so all fields cover a loooooootttt of things, hope you get the idea

my view point was to keep the context within the strategic location and see who has more importance in this region.

 

[Iggy]

That was no take over, it was a hoax played up by the democratic govt to get rid of an adversary and clean up the army from the loyals of the ex-army chief.

Simple.

Hoax or not it irrelavant here yaar..The point is Sri Lanka asked only our help rather than that of China or Pakistan or any other coutry..does that speak about our influvence in these countries??

 

[Peshwa]

Dominance is used where you impose your will on others. If not will then atleast no one speaks a work against you or oppose you.

If such is not the case, then using the work dominant or dominance is not worth it. better would be to use an Important player, not a dominant player.

And if US can't make Iran do anything as per its wishes, then it means US is not dominant in this area or on this country.

US would be dominant in its own continent or where it has strong influence, but not on Iran.

You use the word dominant where you are dominant, where you aren't you don't. India is not dominant on us, so we don;t call it or accept it as a dominant player. Yeah it can be an important one in its own context, while we are important player in our own context due to our location and other factors.

So in those terms, the only countries that US has dominance over is Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.....since US was able to dominate these countries into submitting to their will.....

Are you saying that the US does not have the capacity to dominate other countries whether they choose to or not?

What then about China? Is China only an "important" player since nobody other than Pakistan tows their boat?

I think you're taking this more from an egoistic perspective than anything else to not give an enemy credit.......I agree that India has no leverage over Pakistan....but I refuse to accept that about the rest of the subcontinent....

In today's world, dominance means the use of ones resources, military, economy, power, technology, foreign influence, diplomacy to suit a country's interest and foreign policy....
eg. If the US refuses to sell armed drones to Pakistan because of protests from India....or if Pakistan is not able to secure a nuclear deal due to lobbying by India....that shows dominance.....
The time is gone when dominance could only mean military dominance....

 

[TaimiKhan]

Hoax or not it irrelavant here yaar..The point is Sri Lanka asked only our help rather than that of China or Pakistan or any other coutry..does that speak about our influvence in these countries??

They couldn't ask help from us as we and China is miles away, and as said there was no real threat, it was a drama. So asking India was part of it.

And if that was the case then why Sri Lanka bought all the offensive weapons from China and Pakistan and finished off LTTE which it couldn't do for decades with Indian help. And India despised the help Pakistan & China gave to Sri Lanka.

 

[deckingraj]

Dominance is used where you impose your will on others. If not will then atleast no one speaks a work against you or oppose you.

If such is not the case, then using the work dominant or dominance is not worth it. better would be to use an Important player, not a dominant player.

And if US can't make Iran do anything as per its wishes, then it means US is not dominant in this area or on this country.

US would be dominant in its own continent or where it has strong influence, but not on Iran.

You use the word dominant where you are dominant, where you aren't you don't. India is not dominant on us, so we don;t call it or accept it as a dominant player. Yeah it can be an important one in its own context, while we are important player in our own context due to our location and other factors.

Well it might be just semantics however here is what i understand with the word dominate

"dominate - predominate: be larger in number, quantity, power, status or importance"

So with above given definition if you say US is not larger in number, power, status or importance viz-a-viz Iran then surely it is a wrong word to use...Secondly if i go by your definition can we say US is dominant viz-a-viz Pak?? because they forced you to change your policy towards Pakistan... Would they be able to have same influence in may be a decade from now??? BY then Pakistan would have improved her economy to a great extent and their goes Us influence or Dominance viz-a-viz...but would that mean US would no longer be the dominant force???


Also if we go by this definition US is not a dominant power even in her backyard...ex Cuba, Venezuela etc etc...but they are and we all know it

I think the article is definitely refering to Important or the most powerful force in India ocean...Does that mean we can force Pakistan to do what we wish..heck no..not happening...we can debate on the word used but do you agree to overall logic???...

 

[pak-marine]

Pakistan is the only country who once dealth with this crap we have will be the most domminant power in the region .. as we always have had excellent relations with all neighbours. Once dealth with Pak and China will emerge with the title of Asian super powers

 

[Adios Amigo]

So much said here about domination, but I have still to see domination in which terms, in which sense(specifically in south Asia)?? please elaborate.

 

[Jade]

Dominance is used where you impose your will on others. If not will then atleast no one speaks a work against you or oppose you.

If such is not the case, then using the work dominant or dominance is not worth it. better would be to use an Important player, not a dominant player.

And if US can't make Iran do anything as per its wishes, then it means US is not dominant in this area or on this country.

US would be dominant in its own continent or where it has strong influence, but not on Iran.

You use the word dominant where you are dominant, where you aren't you don't. India is not dominant on us, so we don;t call it or accept it as a dominant player. Yeah it can be an important one in its own context, while we are important player in our own context due to our location and other factors.

At least in international relations dominance has nothing to do impose your will on others. Every country in the world, even as small as Vatican City, has its own self interest. Self interest guides on how you behave in international relations, or with your neighbors. If you think otherwise please show some which say that dominant means making your neighbors tow

 

[TaimiKhan]

So in those terms, the only countries that US has dominance over is Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.....since US was able to dominate these countries into submitting to their will.....

Are you saying that the US does not have the capacity to dominate other countries whether they choose to or not?

What then about China? Is China only an "important" player since nobody other than Pakistan tows their boat?

I think you're taking this more from an egoistic perspective than anything else to not give an enemy credit.......I agree that India has no leverage over Pakistan....but I refuse to accept that about the rest of the subcontinent....

I will give India credit to the side where we have no influence, the way we lost East Pakistan as we had nothing over there. But on this side, the story is different, so no need to give credit to India as it has no role nor can play an effective role as far as pakistan is standing. Afghanistan is a good example to be seen.

And as for US dominance, yeah it has dominance over some countries but not everyone, and as for pakistan, if US had been dominant, well you wouldn't be seeing the Pakistan you see right now. It would have been another story. So US is not even dominant on us. They have not been able to fully make us implement their will.

And there is no egoistic thing in my views, they are based on logic, which is missing on your guys side.

Just like the guy who made an 1800KM away AB into a security cover for a port and showing it as a dominance thing.

 

[pak-marine]

So much said here about domination, but I have still to see domination in which terms(specifically in south Asia)?? please elaborate.

may b they meant domination in India itself "i doubt if they have any thoug"

 

[deckingraj]

I will stop here because you already have Seiko and Peshwa to talk to...Just one last message on this even though its a little off-topic...

They couldn't ask help from us as we and China is miles away, and as said there was no real threat, it was a drama. So asking India was part of it.

My personal view this argument of yours don't have much ground...You ask for help from an influential partner...You don't ask for help just for the sake of it...Weather anything concrete happened or not...at the time when help was seeked there was a real threat...I hope you get my point....

And if that was the case then why Sri Lanka bought all the offensive weapons from China and Pakistan and finished off LTTE which it couldn't do for decades with Indian help. And India despised the help Pakistan & China gave to Sri Lanka.

Are you saying that offensive weapon of India are dud?? Sir please understand that LTTE is a sensitive issue in Tamil Nadu and that's what drive our internal politics... You might not be aware but when LTTE was declared a terrorist organization and banned in india there was such a hue and cry..Even during the final offensive against LTTE there was so much drama about in Tamil Nadu that GOI should interfere and give them asylum etc etc...

Long story short we just cannot sell weapons to them...This is a sensitive matter as per our internal politic and GOI acts accordingly....

 

[Iggy]

They couldn't ask help from us as we and China is miles away, and as said there was no real threat, it was a drama. So asking India was part of it. .

Does the bolded part says all ,that India has much better influvence in the South Asian Countries??

And if that was the case then why Sri Lanka bought all the offensive weapons from China and Pakistan and finished off LTTE which it couldn't do for decades with Indian help. And India despised the help Pakistan & China gave to Sri Lanka.

We couldnt help them because it will create internal problem of India..still its after India refusing to help they came asking for Chinese and Pakistans help..

 

[Jade]

They couldn't ask help from us as we and China is miles away, and as said there was no real threat, it was a drama. So asking India was part of it. .

Your assumptions. Nothing to do with the reality

And if that was the case then why Sri Lanka bought all the offensive weapons from China and Pakistan and finished off LTTE which it couldn't do for decades with Indian help. And India despised the help Pakistan & China gave to Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is a free country. It can do business with which ever country it wants until the business doesn’t hurt India

 

[Iggy]

I will stop here because you already have Seiko and Peshwa to talk to.......

Decki you post mate..you can make much better points than me..I am going to sleep in 5 mins anyway ..

 

[Peshwa]

They couldn't ask help from us as we and China is miles away, and as said there was no real threat, it was a drama. So asking India was part of it.

And if that was the case then why Sri Lanka bought all the offensive weapons from China and Pakistan and finished off LTTE which it couldn't do for decades with Indian help. And India despised the help Pakistan & China gave to Sri Lanka.

Referring only to the bolded portion.....

India is unable to provide Sri-Lanka assistance due to the sensitivity among the native Tamils in India and the sympathy that they share with the Tamil cause in Sri-Lanka,.....to avoid, political backlash in India, we only provided moral support to the operation.....one which could not have been successful with all the "high tech" equipment from China and Pakistan had India not given its blessing....
Again...please refer to Operation Poomalai.....

India despised Sri-Lanka being assisted by Pakistan and China because we dont want our neighbors getting close to the enemy....but it was an internal matter and sovereign states are allowed to make their own decisions.....
Do you think America with all its might can change India's mind about buying arms from Russia, when India needs them badly?....Will the US go to war over it with us? Yet do they have the capacity to dominate us militarily and diplomatically if they wanted to?.....
I hardly call this "showing of teeth"