(Political) Tying up loose ends...........
Instead of resurrecting threads that have been dead for the past couple of months, I will post my long delayed responses here to any issues that I didn't answer then...........
The first of these will be responses to an old "Will Bush win re-election?" thread............
Please keep this one open, mods....................
Sorry, Dingy, I didn't know.Masj said:
Beg your pardon, don't call dingy a he again, it sickens me to think of the possibilities =P.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you, and bow down to you, because your military, doesn't give me another choice.
Also, please. dont' give me any trash about how you guys protected India in WWII, thats a laugh. Thank you.
What do you mean our military doesn't give you a chance? India has a nuclear deterrent that would make us think twice before attempting an imperialist invasion(if we were actually imperialist that is). Plus, India is a democracy and the democratic peace theory hasn't been violated yet by another democracy. Besides, why would you need to bow before us? What do you have that would make us want to threaten your nation? It would be foolish for our country to threaten yours due to our mutually vested business interests located within your country. The only thing that could possibly result in an Indian conflict with our military is if India performs expansionistic military actions in the region that go against our interests, but I doubt that would happen since India doesn't have an imperialist nature anyway.
Think about this, Masj. If the Japanese or the Germans would have won that war, Ghandi wouldn't have gotten far in his non-violent resistance against the foreign occupation. The Japanese would have probably executed him and his followers the instant they gave them trouble and would have performed genocide in order to maintain complete control over the sub-continent's inhabitants. If the Axis forces would have won that war, India wouldn't have achieved its independence at all in the 20th century. On the other hand, the Allies finally saw the light after the war. My country finally gave the Phillippines back and the Brits finally gave India back.
My new isolationist and non-interventionist views on foreign policy are not considered by the majority of Americans. When there is crisis in the world, most people here want the govt. to give a hand to those in need. If not that, it is logical for any country to intervene in a hotspot that could potentially affect its global security interests(1991 Gulf War, Korea).Dingy said:
Are you trying to make people hate you more? So when you're sure people who are important hate you for your foreign policies...you ummm...isolate yourself? Is that your solution to the world's growing disrespect towards America...isolate yourself? Do you think America doesn't need the rest of the world, do you think you can survive on your own? Well, I hope to whoever you think is god, that you are not voicing the opinion of the majority of America, especially bush, since he thinks he is insuperable and controls the world. Instead of trying to reconcilate the already hostile situation in the world, you want to call the quits? You are the biggest aid givers to the UN and you want to leave, aren't you already manipulating it enough?
Reagan, Your intransigence to even accept for a second that America is infact made of humans and humans are not invincible, seems to me quite strange. I was actually going to praise you on one of your first posts in this thread, where you said, even a person like you believed that bush might not win and the reason you gave.
If you continue to regard your "objects of conquer" (as I would like to call countries like Iraq, Vietnam, etc.) as ingrates just because Vietnam adopted communism after a vain 17 year American stay over there and because the world public opinion is going against America, then you can't expect the world to fall in love with your "efforts to democratize Iraq". You bloody think you can do it on your own, then fine, don't freaking female canine about the world hating you. Bush waged a war on Iraq, when the whole world was against it, I cannot give more proof to show you how bush doesn't give a shit about the world. What happened during the WW and Cold War, was not bush's problem, but since you are infringing on the past, I wouldn't mind bringing that up either.
The anti-Americanism from "objects of conquer" is not what I am solely talking about. It has been 60 years since we liberated France, but that country seems like it is giving us the most grief in our recent efforts. It has been nearly 15 years since Germany has been re-united under democracy, but that country is now against our current efforts as well.
When the whole world is against something, does it always make it right? If the UN is the representative of the will of the whole world before the recent war, then it is a disappointment. The UN is currently under a major investigation due to the "Oil for Food" scandal. The world claims we went to war for oil, but the world should find it suspicious that key UN leaders were involved in a bribery scandal from Saddam's regime. These bribed leaders could also possibly include a few of the war's opponents on the Security Council. Recently, some employees of the UN have gotten so fed up with the corruption there that they wrote a letter to the media that urged them to keep up the spotlight and pressure on the UN investigation. Finally, the UN is a democratic world body, but it includes many non-democratic members that would want to thwart American diplomatic efforts to spread democracy and human rights. We lost our seat on the Human Rights commission to Libya(am I right? somebody?). If the majority of the world's governments aren't democratic or don't give basic human rights to their citizens, then would they be morally superior to be against the American form of government or Bill of Rights? What I am trying to say is.............If the majority of the members in the UN are bribed by Saddam, then does it make their opposition against the war morally superior?
I agree that the native people should have the right to choose their own native government. Unfortunately, the Iraqis couldn't. You must remember that Saddam attained power through a coup and maintained it by killing his political opposition. We encouraged the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam after the '91 war, but sadly the Iraqis couldn't pull it off. The Iraqis couldn't change their own government peacefully(no real democracy) or through force(no right to bear arms for Iraqis). Therefore, we took it upon ourselves to relieve Saddam of his power and help form a new democracy that could potentially be more American-friendly(anti-terrorist).Dingy said:
The "help" that you are referring to that was offered to India was when USA persuaded Britain to grant us independence, because it was against the principle of the Atlantic Charter (signed 1941) stating:
a)nations should not expend taking territories from other nations
b)ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN GOVTS.
Anyway, we are eternally grateful to you for our freedom, if that satisfies you, I will proceed.
A major drift between USA and India has been the fact that a state of India-Goa was under the Portuguese rule till 1961 (we gained independence in 1947). Do you know why the US kept shut? Because Portugal was an ally of Nato and ofcourse America must keep its members happy. So please stop fooling yourself that America is the saviour of the world. You help when you have something to gain, that is only human, but making yourself out to be something you're not (wonderful, great, invincible, humble, helpful) is rubbish.
Israel will survive without you, give people a chance.
I didn't know about the Portugal problem. Sorry about that.
I know that my country isn't totally "goody goody" and that we don't always do things for nobly benevolent reasons, but my country's military actions abroad usually resulted in improving the overall situation of the targeted nation's people over time. We will never know what would have happened to Vietnam if we had won that war, but I can always look at our finer reconstruction achievements elsewhere. Hopefully, Iraq will be one of those.
The Israelis can maybe survive without us now, but not during the 1940's-1970's. If only Arafat would use his foreign aid money to help the Palestinians improve their economy and quality of life to help achieve peace instead of embezzling millions and giving the money to his wife in Paris...............
Sorry about my over-reaction, but I was getting a little too emotional at the time since my man is likely to lose re-election. I think I've finally come to accept the possibility that Kerry will win. I'll try not to start seething again.........Dingy said:
Your assumption is wrong, you take things to negatively, try and read what I said that in reply to, rationalize, take a chill pill and then reply, I'm not fighting you, I respect you reagan, I really do, no hard feelings from my side, so please don't view this as an attack, it's just an argument, not a battle of nations.
I don't think it's right to be ignorant to the past when others are dead due to America's action. A death is a death, it is regretful, nasty, brutal and to cause it is murder. I don't want you to get depressed, but as an American atleast understand that your country needs to be responsible for what it does. You think you can just trample on nations, people, lives and justify the damage as a humanitarian act!
I might be an ameteur dumbass from a third world country, but I think it's easy to understand that bush hasn't dealt with the aftermath of 9/11 adroitly...instead of conciliating with the arabs and muslims...you want to fight them? My whole point has been achieved, I wanted you to understand that it's not easy to move on, but it's easy to assume that your victim will.
no one's asking you to move to another continent, however as I said earlier, atleast admit that you didn't do an angelic thing by taking over someone else's homeland.
I don't like it when innocent people die in our wars either, but it is unrealistic to think that it can always be avoided. Many innocent people died on all fronts in World War 2, but that didn't stop the war or our efforts to win it. Innocent Iraqis are dying in Iraq today. Some of it is our fault due to accidents in a combat zone. Some of it is the result of Islamist terrorism or Fascist interference. I am trying to say that our war isn't a humanitarian act. Our wars are never humanitarian acts, but the aftermath of our wars usually improve the lives of our vanquished foes over time with our reconstructive help.
You are not a dumbass and your country has economic potential especially if foreign industrial outsourcing grows within it. I assume your country has a superior public education system because I have seen many Indian students in my college's engineering school. Most of the engineering school's teacher's assistants are apparently Indian. I think one of my potential senior-level engineering professors is an Indian as well. If there are more people like that in your country, India has a good chance rivaling our trade just like China does.
We don't want to fight all of the Arabs and Muslims. Bush made a clear distinction that we aren't at war with the entire Muslim world. He said we are only after the terrorists and extremists. Bush also condemned post-9/11 murders of Arabs and Muslims residing in the United States. We're trying to do our part to resolve our issues with the Arab world, but we can't work it out peacefully with al Qaeda. They won't change their zealous ways and their unrealistic demands can't be made.
Taking the Native Americans' land was atrocious and wrong.........I concur.
I think the Hitler's cronie statement is pushing it a little too far.Dingy said:
Heh! doesn't the oil count? So basically, you people don't care about getting respect and admiration for all the good things you do (eg. give money for scientific research, help in gentic engineering, etc.), you want credit/money/oil/ally/territoy in return for whatever you want to call what you did in Iraq (I am quite exasperated trying to explain that it's not democratic, maybe I need to go to hang out and have a couple of drinks).
What do you want in return, if the whole world is anti-American foreign policy, then you're no better than hitler's cronies ( no offence to Shutzsaffel and Waffen, sry if theres a sp error) who murdered millions defending their commander-in-chief.
HAHA! You're superiority is not a result of an able-bodied administration, neither is it due to a flawless foreign policy, or it's security system, it's because of all the dough you have, you're financially superior and may I add greedy. Half your labour is foreign, your inspiring mate here, reagan himself said that, half the brains behind your achievements are foreign, what superiority are you referring to again?
I'll answer your question as to why it's not another country...I don't see the eiffel tower being crashed into by planes, or any other American ally panicking and making superflous attempts to strengthen the security system like America.
You have reached the position that you are in, because of the wealth that you have accrued from various countries, I don't mean illegally.
Sweat, what sweat? Oh! the poor Mexican cleaning your toilet, without the luxury of an air-conditioned office with leather chairs, he has to do with a plastic shit pot, yes, yes, poor guy, hand him a tissue, which you must have painfully made with your own bare hands sitting under the hot sun on a humid day, with the sweat dripping off your brow...ah! and we all lived happily ever after, wasn't that the end of the story?
Today you are only superior in one way, you hold the world on ransom by the push of a button.
The United States started out as a bankrupt non-industrialized third-world former colony composed mainly of uneducated farmers. We didn't have much of a democracy either back then. Before Andrew Jackson came to power, the only people that could vote were RICH white men. Our fledgling nation also survived a civil war. If we could rise out of the ashes like that, then any nation can do it.
The European populations are content with their current situation since the Cold War is over. The post-Cold War peace dividend has allowed the Europeans to spend less on a strong defense so that they can focus on socialist spending programs. Therefore, they have no desire to maintain a strong allied military force to assist our global efforts. Basically, we are spending more on defense today to make up for the lack of NATO cooperation and the weakening of our allies. If the European Union ever becomes a unified military power, the terrorists will probably add them to their list of targets. The French have a nearly disgruntled Arab minority living amongst them. Terrorists have recently threatened them due to their ban on Islamic head dresses in school, and I think there was an actual plot to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower a few years ago.
We didn't always have this wealth. We only recieved this financial advantage because the industrialized world was in shambles after World War 2. Luckily for my country, our industries escaped the war intact. After the war, we didn't completely hoard this newfound wealth. We invested billions into the reconstruction of Europe and our other vanquished foes. Western Europe got democracy, human rights, and prosperity under capitalism. We got allies and trading partners. I'd say that is a fair trade-off. Finally, we won't have this wealth forever especially if our education system stays in the crapper. Just bide your time..............
Holding the world ransom by the push of a button.............If it were between 1945-1948, that statement might've had credence. I don't recall us having any instances of nuclear sabre-rattling against non-nuclear states or democracies. Today, there are several world powers that possess nuclear deterrent forces, including India. Any one of those nuclear club members has the capability to bring about global armageddon. Just because we have the most nukes doesn't mean we're the most dangerous. I heard somewhere that it only takes 10 nuclear warheads to bring about nuclear winter or global climate/atmospheric changes(can someone confirm?).
