Anyone who pays attention to international affairs knows that the US has been seeking a rapprochement with India; Prime Minister Modi just had his first meeting with President Obama the other day. Meanwhile, the US has been at odds with China over its ballooning territorial claims in the South China Sea, to the point of possibly terminating the ban on arms sales to Viet Nam. I don't think the GP needs to provide citations for such easily acquired current affairs knowledge.
Opinion: Anyone who pays attention to international affairs knows that the US has been seeking a rapprochement with India
Unconvincing evidence: The President met with the President of India. Mr. Obama also met with the mayor of Gary, Indiana yesterday.
It is easy to acquire incomplete current affairs knowledge.
You are attributing the United States motivation to counter China to claims to the South China sea. I can think of dozens of other sources of friction between these countries that also contribute: human rights, intellectual property protection, hacking of US government computers, hacking of US corporation computers, influence in SE Asia, influence in Africa, claims in the East China sea, support of North Korea, support of Iran, support of Assad, climate policy, trade imbalance, nuclear proliferation, etc.
But, some claims in the South East China sea are the reason the US is partnering with India on the space program? Not supported by facts.
Why pollute Hacker News with unsubstantiated opinions or worse half backed (more like 1/128 baked) analysis?
Rubbish. You're trying to apply thesis standards to informal conversation. It would be one thing to critique if the original commenter had built a complex theory on an invalid premise, but jumping down someone's throat over the lack of supporting data in a two-sentence comment is overdoing it. My allusion to some current facts is not meant as a complete causal description either, but merely as examples of current news coverage.
I'm all for fact-checking, but HN is not Wikipedia, in the same way that current affairs coverage does not and need not substitute for a history book.
Exactly what are you getting at here? If you have a problem with the fundamental point in the GP post, why don't you just say it? We all know that international relations are complex, and a quick summary will necessarily ignore, gloss over, or oversimplify many issues. It's still valuable when we'd like to get an idea of what's going on and why in a paragraph, instead of reading and writing hundred-page reports citing thousands of sources.
