"They" are not like "us": the most common bias of international politics
-
suhredayan wrote:
The point is the US policy is missing something really bad.
US foreign policy has been mismanaged by one-world wonks on both the right and the left since the fifties.
suhredayan wrote:
despite of all the efforts and sacrifice by your own brave soldiers, why lot of people hate US like anything?
Same reason so many used to hate England when there was a British Empire; Spain before that; and so on back to how the Greeks felt about Macedon (I think they still feel that way, as a matter of fact.) The dominant power is seen as arrogant, condescending, and terribly unlikable simply because it is seen to rule the world. Microsoft and the Yankees baseball team suffered the same fate for awhile in the last century.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
the Yankees baseball team suffered the same fate for awhile in the last century
Bah, I still hate the Yankees. I used to hate Notre Dame, not because they won games, but because of the unfair advantage they had in the press and thereby the polls. Now I just feel sorry for them.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Rob Graham wrote:
His bigotry is not limited to race, although racism colors it.
But then, you *are* a liar (and probably a bigot, too, you damned-stupid cracker).
Wow. "cracker", a new insult (new for Troy, at least). I'm impressed, and honored. How long did it take you to find that one? Or did a someone else suggest it to you?
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The Orthodox Church created similar moral foundations, but in the countries outside Catholic Church area of influence.
But the Orthodox Churches, by being tied to nations, did not provide the concept of laws that transcended national borders.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I'm lost here
Google is your friend
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But the Orthodox Churches, by being tied to nations, did not provide the concept of laws that transcended national borders.
And what is the moral of this? Yes, no more generalizations. You are right for the facts, but wrong in the conclusions. Just for example the Orthodox Churches in Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire/ and Bulgaria helps them to be a shield against Arabian invasion in Europe for hundreds years /especially for Byzantine/, help them to survive Ottoman rule and was a base for creating and spreading the Cyrillic alphabetic in Bulgaria. Nowadays I wouldn’t say that the both countries are uncivilized, non-democratic or are ruled by dictator. So if you be so kind to stop narrowing the good influence of the Christianity only to Catholic Church we wouldn’t have for what to argue about.
Oakman wrote:
Google is your friend
The European history is my hobby from a plenty of years, so please don’t send me to google. I asked you a direct question. P.P: Happy New Year!
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Oakman wrote:
But the Orthodox Churches, by being tied to nations, did not provide the concept of laws that transcended national borders.
And what is the moral of this? Yes, no more generalizations. You are right for the facts, but wrong in the conclusions. Just for example the Orthodox Churches in Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire/ and Bulgaria helps them to be a shield against Arabian invasion in Europe for hundreds years /especially for Byzantine/, help them to survive Ottoman rule and was a base for creating and spreading the Cyrillic alphabetic in Bulgaria. Nowadays I wouldn’t say that the both countries are uncivilized, non-democratic or are ruled by dictator. So if you be so kind to stop narrowing the good influence of the Christianity only to Catholic Church we wouldn’t have for what to argue about.
Oakman wrote:
Google is your friend
The European history is my hobby from a plenty of years, so please don’t send me to google. I asked you a direct question. P.P: Happy New Year!
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
You are right for the facts, but wrong in the conclusions.
Hard to believe. But I have been wrong before. . .I remember once, when I was twelve. . .
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
Nowadays I wouldn’t say that the both countries are uncivilized, non-democratic or are ruled by dictator.
Skipping earlier history, I will point out that, as a kingdom, Bulgaria fought with Germany in WWI and WWII. It then became one of the USSR's staunchest allies as a 'People's Republic' with one man, Zhivkov, ruling for 33 years. In 1990, it finally had free elections for the first time. I cannot, no matter how I try to twist logic, consider this any sort of a track record of the rule of law rather than men. Get back to me in about fifty years and let's see how it works out.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
You are right for the facts, but wrong in the conclusions.
Hard to believe. But I have been wrong before. . .I remember once, when I was twelve. . .
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
Nowadays I wouldn’t say that the both countries are uncivilized, non-democratic or are ruled by dictator.
Skipping earlier history, I will point out that, as a kingdom, Bulgaria fought with Germany in WWI and WWII. It then became one of the USSR's staunchest allies as a 'People's Republic' with one man, Zhivkov, ruling for 33 years. In 1990, it finally had free elections for the first time. I cannot, no matter how I try to twist logic, consider this any sort of a track record of the rule of law rather than men. Get back to me in about fifty years and let's see how it works out.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Skipping earlier history, I will point out that, as a kingdom, Bulgaria fought with Germany in WWI and WWII.
You are wrong for the WWII. The Bulgaria was allied with Germany “on a paper” only in the beginning of the war and thus achieved to save the civilian population and all of our Jews. In the second part the Bulgarian army fights effectively against the Nazis. Check your sources. The end of the war has found my grandpa in Austria with a heavy machine gun two times loosing his entire platoon because of 90% casualties. What about yours?
Oakman wrote:
It then became one of the USSR's staunchest allies as a 'People's Republic' with one man, Zhivkov, ruling for 33 years. In 1990, it finally had free elections for the first time.
If I understand you correctly, you are skipping more then 1300 years of history to take some 45 years which fits to your theory for “all-good-comes-from-the-Catholic-Church” thing? This definitely have some entertainment value!:)
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Oakman wrote:
Skipping earlier history, I will point out that, as a kingdom, Bulgaria fought with Germany in WWI and WWII.
You are wrong for the WWII. The Bulgaria was allied with Germany “on a paper” only in the beginning of the war and thus achieved to save the civilian population and all of our Jews. In the second part the Bulgarian army fights effectively against the Nazis. Check your sources. The end of the war has found my grandpa in Austria with a heavy machine gun two times loosing his entire platoon because of 90% casualties. What about yours?
Oakman wrote:
It then became one of the USSR's staunchest allies as a 'People's Republic' with one man, Zhivkov, ruling for 33 years. In 1990, it finally had free elections for the first time.
If I understand you correctly, you are skipping more then 1300 years of history to take some 45 years which fits to your theory for “all-good-comes-from-the-Catholic-Church” thing? This definitely have some entertainment value!:)
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The Bulgaria was allied with Germany “on a paper” only in the beginning of the war
That paper alliance allowed Bulgaria to invade and occupy parts of Greece and Yugoslavia. You are absolutely right about saving the entire Jewish population. In 1944, Bulgaria turned its coat and allied itself with Stalin, allowing the Bulgarian Communist Party to take over. Neither before or after the switch could Bulgaria claim to be ruled by laws.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you are skipping more then 1300 years of history to take some 45 years which fits to your theory for “all-good-comes-from-the-Catholic-Church” thing?
If you want to explain to me about how either the first or second Bulgarian Empire supported the rule of law rather than of the Tsar I'd be delighted to hear your explanation. I skipped everything but the last 100 years only because I assumed you knew that Bulgaria had been dominated by the Tsars and boyars.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The end of the war has found my grandpa in Austria with a heavy machine gun two times loosing his entire platoon because of 90% casualties
My father died in 1943. My stepfather was a REMF in the Army Airforce. One of my uncles was a bomber pilot flying daylight precision bombing raids over Germany. Another was a navigator doing the same thing. A third uncle flew P51 close support for those bombing raids. My second cousin commanded a little organization called the Third Army. My grandfathers were much too old to fight in WWII, but both of them saw combat in France during WWI. I've also had relatives in the Spanish American War, the American Civil War (both sides), Custer's Last Stand, the War of 1812, and the American Revolution - again both sides. Personally, I rode shotgun in Hueys during the Vietnam war and got an early discharge after I had to be evacked to Hawaii when the one I was in was shot down. So tell me, you want to have more pissing contests, or are we done with this thread? :)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The Bulgaria was allied with Germany “on a paper” only in the beginning of the war
That paper alliance allowed Bulgaria to invade and occupy parts of Greece and Yugoslavia. You are absolutely right about saving the entire Jewish population. In 1944, Bulgaria turned its coat and allied itself with Stalin, allowing the Bulgarian Communist Party to take over. Neither before or after the switch could Bulgaria claim to be ruled by laws.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you are skipping more then 1300 years of history to take some 45 years which fits to your theory for “all-good-comes-from-the-Catholic-Church” thing?
If you want to explain to me about how either the first or second Bulgarian Empire supported the rule of law rather than of the Tsar I'd be delighted to hear your explanation. I skipped everything but the last 100 years only because I assumed you knew that Bulgaria had been dominated by the Tsars and boyars.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The end of the war has found my grandpa in Austria with a heavy machine gun two times loosing his entire platoon because of 90% casualties
My father died in 1943. My stepfather was a REMF in the Army Airforce. One of my uncles was a bomber pilot flying daylight precision bombing raids over Germany. Another was a navigator doing the same thing. A third uncle flew P51 close support for those bombing raids. My second cousin commanded a little organization called the Third Army. My grandfathers were much too old to fight in WWII, but both of them saw combat in France during WWI. I've also had relatives in the Spanish American War, the American Civil War (both sides), Custer's Last Stand, the War of 1812, and the American Revolution - again both sides. Personally, I rode shotgun in Hueys during the Vietnam war and got an early discharge after I had to be evacked to Hawaii when the one I was in was shot down. So tell me, you want to have more pissing contests, or are we done with this thread? :)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Personally, I rode shotgun in Hueys during the Vietnam war and got an early discharge after I had to be evacked to Hawaii when the one I was in was shot down. So tell me, you want to have more pissing contests, or are we done with this thread?
I have watched the Oliver Stone’s “Platoon” seven times, does that counts?:) And yes, I’m also done with this thread.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
suhredayan wrote:
unsolicited aid are more an attempt to buyout countries or get more control on their foreign policies
No-one, especially the U.S. has ever forced India to take a nickle. India has accepted massive aid from Russia, Europe and the U.S. and it is the only thing that kept India going long enough to have the brilliant economy she does today. Read your own history. Certainly there have been quid pro quo offers from time to time, in addition to massive direct food grants that asked for nothing. But so what? Do you object to the U.S. occasionally expecting something in return? Are you under the impression that Foreign Aid is Foreign Welfare? Do you think the U.S. owes India a living?
suhredayan wrote:
Even this was the result of the similar policy, "I am bigger than you", not because USSR or USA was evil.
What the fuck does your statement have to do with whether or not the U.S. and the USSR almost went to Defcon 1 over Cuba? No-one, not even you, has been talking about good and evil. Just reality.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:31 AM
Oakman wrote:
in addition to massive direct food grants that asked for nothing
_It is also clear that the U.S. program—under which most food aid is purchased and bagged by U.S. agribusinesses and shipped by U.S. shipping firms—and which was designed over 50 years ago when the U.S. had abundant food surpluses to dispose of—is enormously inefficient and often detrimental to poor countries and their farmers.
More important, this food contained genetically modified organisms, in violation of GM laws in India. In 2002 and 2003, 10,000 tons of Genetically Engineered (GE) corn-soya blend from the U.S. was sent back by the government of India, despite pressure from the U.S. government, because it was suspected to be mixed with Starlink—a corn cleared only for animal feeding in the U.S.
_[^] Don't be of the impression, US is sending aid around the world for nothing and is running all the show. However having said that, India is no better, perhaps was more worse in choosing to export the surplus food than providing it to the hungry.Oakman wrote:
it is the only thing that kept India going long
Where did you find that? I have heard economists here arguing, foreign aid brings more problem than good for the economy, because it increases countries dependency on foreign exchange commitments.
-Suhredayan
-
Oakman wrote:
in addition to massive direct food grants that asked for nothing
_It is also clear that the U.S. program—under which most food aid is purchased and bagged by U.S. agribusinesses and shipped by U.S. shipping firms—and which was designed over 50 years ago when the U.S. had abundant food surpluses to dispose of—is enormously inefficient and often detrimental to poor countries and their farmers.
More important, this food contained genetically modified organisms, in violation of GM laws in India. In 2002 and 2003, 10,000 tons of Genetically Engineered (GE) corn-soya blend from the U.S. was sent back by the government of India, despite pressure from the U.S. government, because it was suspected to be mixed with Starlink—a corn cleared only for animal feeding in the U.S.
_[^] Don't be of the impression, US is sending aid around the world for nothing and is running all the show. However having said that, India is no better, perhaps was more worse in choosing to export the surplus food than providing it to the hungry.Oakman wrote:
it is the only thing that kept India going long
Where did you find that? I have heard economists here arguing, foreign aid brings more problem than good for the economy, because it increases countries dependency on foreign exchange commitments.
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
Don't be of the impression, US is sending aid around the world for nothing and is running all the show
Never was of such an impression. But I do know that even when India was sitting in the USSR's pocket, the US was providing food aid - which was accepted. No matter how you dance and sing, that is the truth. These days India is perfectly welcome to be on its own. Of course your government discovered that most of the rural poor in West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam and Uttar Pradesh were slowly starving to death and that 53% of the grain that was supposed to be given to the urban poor in New Delhi was being to diverted. So good luck with being on your own. By the way, did you note that the author of the article you linked to teaches classes in improvisation, comedy writing, and creative non-fiction? I especially like the term "creative non-fiction." Do you think it's a code word for spin? It is perhaps also worthy of noting that if India wishes to reject all foreign aid, they are at liberty to do so. No-one is holding a gun to any Indian government official and forcing them to accept our gifts. Indeed, after reading your posts, it is rapidly becoming a hope of mine that the U.S. will cut off all aid to India tomorrow - if only to make you happy.
suhredayan wrote:
I have heard economists here arguing, foreign aid brings more problem than good for the economy, because it increases countries dependency on foreign exchange commitments.
What makes you think that what you say in the above quote has any bearing on whether or not massive amounts of aid were received by India in the past? Is it that you are unaware of your country's history or are you ashamed to admit that at one time India needed lots of help? Your arguments and your unwillingness to deal with the facts as they are, rather than as you wish them to be, have begun to remind me of a certain Pakistani Soapbox poster.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
in addition to massive direct food grants that asked for nothing
_It is also clear that the U.S. program—under which most food aid is purchased and bagged by U.S. agribusinesses and shipped by U.S. shipping firms—and which was designed over 50 years ago when the U.S. had abundant food surpluses to dispose of—is enormously inefficient and often detrimental to poor countries and their farmers.
More important, this food contained genetically modified organisms, in violation of GM laws in India. In 2002 and 2003, 10,000 tons of Genetically Engineered (GE) corn-soya blend from the U.S. was sent back by the government of India, despite pressure from the U.S. government, because it was suspected to be mixed with Starlink—a corn cleared only for animal feeding in the U.S.
_[^] Don't be of the impression, US is sending aid around the world for nothing and is running all the show. However having said that, India is no better, perhaps was more worse in choosing to export the surplus food than providing it to the hungry.Oakman wrote:
it is the only thing that kept India going long
Where did you find that? I have heard economists here arguing, foreign aid brings more problem than good for the economy, because it increases countries dependency on foreign exchange commitments.
-Suhredayan
So you believe India has no need for foreign aid. Things must therefore be looking up especially for those (who were) desperate and destitute families living in abject poverty in and around Calcutta. Perhaps the multi-billionaire owner of the Mittal company has developed a conscience by spending some of his glorious fortune and thus rid the country of poverty. According to my research, Calcutta is no better today than it was when Mother Teresa was alive. And people are still having to scavenge amongst the Rubbish (refuse) dumps.
-
suhredayan wrote:
Don't be of the impression, US is sending aid around the world for nothing and is running all the show
Never was of such an impression. But I do know that even when India was sitting in the USSR's pocket, the US was providing food aid - which was accepted. No matter how you dance and sing, that is the truth. These days India is perfectly welcome to be on its own. Of course your government discovered that most of the rural poor in West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam and Uttar Pradesh were slowly starving to death and that 53% of the grain that was supposed to be given to the urban poor in New Delhi was being to diverted. So good luck with being on your own. By the way, did you note that the author of the article you linked to teaches classes in improvisation, comedy writing, and creative non-fiction? I especially like the term "creative non-fiction." Do you think it's a code word for spin? It is perhaps also worthy of noting that if India wishes to reject all foreign aid, they are at liberty to do so. No-one is holding a gun to any Indian government official and forcing them to accept our gifts. Indeed, after reading your posts, it is rapidly becoming a hope of mine that the U.S. will cut off all aid to India tomorrow - if only to make you happy.
suhredayan wrote:
I have heard economists here arguing, foreign aid brings more problem than good for the economy, because it increases countries dependency on foreign exchange commitments.
What makes you think that what you say in the above quote has any bearing on whether or not massive amounts of aid were received by India in the past? Is it that you are unaware of your country's history or are you ashamed to admit that at one time India needed lots of help? Your arguments and your unwillingness to deal with the facts as they are, rather than as you wish them to be, have begun to remind me of a certain Pakistani Soapbox poster.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
India was sitting in the USSR's pocket
India was not much interested in US-USSR cold war, this was one of the reason India even tried for Non-Aligned_Movement[^]. But India was forced to choose any one because it needed to import military equipment for self defense. If you see the history, India never brought everything Soviet sold, India always gave priority to its democracy. Neither did India create any monster organizations to help USSR to take on USA. But see what India face now? a neighbor who is controlled by Frankenstein monsters who is only a matter of time away in getting hold of nuke. And US consider this country their friend, because they were on their side during cold war! Perhaps you don't know how it feels.
Oakman wrote:
admit that at one time India needed lots of help?
I have no disagreement with you on that. I appreciate that US and other rich countries have always helped India. I only disagreed when you mentioned it was the only thing that kept India going. Because the aid figure doesn't even come near to our yearly defense (non-productive) expenditure.
-Suhredayan
-
So you believe India has no need for foreign aid. Things must therefore be looking up especially for those (who were) desperate and destitute families living in abject poverty in and around Calcutta. Perhaps the multi-billionaire owner of the Mittal company has developed a conscience by spending some of his glorious fortune and thus rid the country of poverty. According to my research, Calcutta is no better today than it was when Mother Teresa was alive. And people are still having to scavenge amongst the Rubbish (refuse) dumps.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So you believe India has no need for foreign aid.
Don't put word into my mouth. India is one of the poorest nations around, and a large section needs lot of help. But don't tell me all the rich nations was really worried of this fact and has tried everything least that they could. Or it was only because all the rich nations India's hundred core peoples are still alive and India is still going on.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Perhaps the multi-billionaire owner of the Mittal company has developed a conscience by spending some of his glorious fortune and thus rid the country of poverty.
Let's not talk about persons, show me a single rich country worried about this. Most are much more worried when the stock market tumble or bailing out selfish financial institutions. Which for me doesn't make any sense when there are thousands around the world dying due to hunger.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So you believe India has no need for foreign aid.
Don't put word into my mouth. India is one of the poorest nations around, and a large section needs lot of help. But don't tell me all the rich nations was really worried of this fact and has tried everything least that they could. Or it was only because all the rich nations India's hundred core peoples are still alive and India is still going on.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Perhaps the multi-billionaire owner of the Mittal company has developed a conscience by spending some of his glorious fortune and thus rid the country of poverty.
Let's not talk about persons, show me a single rich country worried about this. Most are much more worried when the stock market tumble or bailing out selfish financial institutions. Which for me doesn't make any sense when there are thousands around the world dying due to hunger.
I'm sorry Suhredayan, from your messages in this thread, I got the impression that India does not want aid and has never asked for aid. Consequently I jumped (apparently wrongly) to the conclusion that India does not have a need for foreign aid. Thus your poverty problems are history. I recognise that poverty is a real issue for many hundreds of thousands in India and no matter who does or says what, eradicating that poverty will be a long term process. I know full well that India is a fine proud nation, proud of all of its institutions with confidence in a grand future. However, India is not alone in its economic and social concerns for the next year or two and it will be a tough time irrespective if you live in Delhi, Dallas (USA) or Dundee (Scotland). But, have a Happy New Year.
-
Oakman wrote:
India was sitting in the USSR's pocket
India was not much interested in US-USSR cold war, this was one of the reason India even tried for Non-Aligned_Movement[^]. But India was forced to choose any one because it needed to import military equipment for self defense. If you see the history, India never brought everything Soviet sold, India always gave priority to its democracy. Neither did India create any monster organizations to help USSR to take on USA. But see what India face now? a neighbor who is controlled by Frankenstein monsters who is only a matter of time away in getting hold of nuke. And US consider this country their friend, because they were on their side during cold war! Perhaps you don't know how it feels.
Oakman wrote:
admit that at one time India needed lots of help?
I have no disagreement with you on that. I appreciate that US and other rich countries have always helped India. I only disagreed when you mentioned it was the only thing that kept India going. Because the aid figure doesn't even come near to our yearly defense (non-productive) expenditure.
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
India was not much interested in US-USSR cold war,
Au contraire. It was extremely interested because it realised that it could play the US off against the USSR and vice versa. Which is what it did, quite brilliantly, until the USSR couldn't afford to play any more.
suhredayan wrote:
Because the aid figure doesn't even come near to our yearly defense (non-productive) expenditure.
If you need a 1000 rupees and you can only earn 800 rupees and someone comes along and gives you 200 rupees, then they have kept you going, even though they have only provided you with 20% of your total needs. The proper response to that is not to demand that they give you more, or deny that they never gave you anything, or to complain that they didn't give it to you in the small bills you would have preferred, but to say, 'Thank you.'
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So you believe India has no need for foreign aid.
Don't put word into my mouth. India is one of the poorest nations around, and a large section needs lot of help. But don't tell me all the rich nations was really worried of this fact and has tried everything least that they could. Or it was only because all the rich nations India's hundred core peoples are still alive and India is still going on.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Perhaps the multi-billionaire owner of the Mittal company has developed a conscience by spending some of his glorious fortune and thus rid the country of poverty.
Let's not talk about persons, show me a single rich country worried about this. Most are much more worried when the stock market tumble or bailing out selfish financial institutions. Which for me doesn't make any sense when there are thousands around the world dying due to hunger.
suhredayan wrote:
Let's not talk about persons, show me a single rich country worried about this.
Why should they be? Why shouldn't they worry about their own citizens first? Indeed, don't they have a duty to focus on the health and well-being of their citizens before anything else?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
suhredayan wrote:
India was not much interested in US-USSR cold war,
Au contraire. It was extremely interested because it realised that it could play the US off against the USSR and vice versa. Which is what it did, quite brilliantly, until the USSR couldn't afford to play any more.
suhredayan wrote:
Because the aid figure doesn't even come near to our yearly defense (non-productive) expenditure.
If you need a 1000 rupees and you can only earn 800 rupees and someone comes along and gives you 200 rupees, then they have kept you going, even though they have only provided you with 20% of your total needs. The proper response to that is not to demand that they give you more, or deny that they never gave you anything, or to complain that they didn't give it to you in the small bills you would have preferred, but to say, 'Thank you.'
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Au contraire
If my memory is correct (may not be 100%), prior to the collapse of Soviet Union, a huge quantity of military hardware - eg tanks and aircraft - employed by the Indian Armed Forces were of Soviet manufacturer, with USA and UK defence industries not getting much of a look in (some was sold but in low numbers in comparison). Only since the demise of the Soviet Union have India chosen to manufacture much of its own military hardware and if I'm not mistaken, most of that is based, or should I say, improvement of, on some Soviet era stuff.
-
suhredayan wrote:
India was not much interested in US-USSR cold war,
Au contraire. It was extremely interested because it realised that it could play the US off against the USSR and vice versa. Which is what it did, quite brilliantly, until the USSR couldn't afford to play any more.
suhredayan wrote:
Because the aid figure doesn't even come near to our yearly defense (non-productive) expenditure.
If you need a 1000 rupees and you can only earn 800 rupees and someone comes along and gives you 200 rupees, then they have kept you going, even though they have only provided you with 20% of your total needs. The proper response to that is not to demand that they give you more, or deny that they never gave you anything, or to complain that they didn't give it to you in the small bills you would have preferred, but to say, 'Thank you.'
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
If you need a 1000 rupees and you can only earn 800 rupees and someone comes along and gives you 200 rupees, then they have kept you going, even though they have only provided you with 20% of your total needs. The proper response to that is not to demand that they give you more, or deny that they never gave you anything, or to complain that they didn't give it to you in the small bills you would have preferred, but to say, 'Thank you.'
If you find a poor man in need and you lend him money for interest (and hedging own currency), a better way of defining it would be, mutual help, than saying I'm helping you for nothing. If you find a human being dying starving, and you are wasting four human beings food, but choose to give your animal's food, and this poor man refuse it saying, "No thanks, I would dye starving than eating that". A better way to respond would be "I am sorry", than forcing him to eat that. (see my earlier reply) [^]
-
suhredayan wrote:
Let's not talk about persons, show me a single rich country worried about this.
Why should they be? Why shouldn't they worry about their own citizens first? Indeed, don't they have a duty to focus on the health and well-being of their citizens before anything else?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Why should they be? Why shouldn't they worry about their own citizens first? Indeed, don't they have a duty to focus on the health and well-being of their citizens before anything else?
Of course you are right. But don't tell me India is going on today only because of the rich countries around the world.
-
Oakman wrote:
If you need a 1000 rupees and you can only earn 800 rupees and someone comes along and gives you 200 rupees, then they have kept you going, even though they have only provided you with 20% of your total needs. The proper response to that is not to demand that they give you more, or deny that they never gave you anything, or to complain that they didn't give it to you in the small bills you would have preferred, but to say, 'Thank you.'
If you find a poor man in need and you lend him money for interest (and hedging own currency), a better way of defining it would be, mutual help, than saying I'm helping you for nothing. If you find a human being dying starving, and you are wasting four human beings food, but choose to give your animal's food, and this poor man refuse it saying, "No thanks, I would dye starving than eating that". A better way to respond would be "I am sorry", than forcing him to eat that. (see my earlier reply) [^]
suhredayan wrote:
"No thanks, I would dye starving than eating that".
That is of course, the dying man's choice, and you are absolutely right, it shouldn't be forced on him. But it is not an analog in this case. India took the aid, used it wisely, and prospered to the point where it could, if it wished, feed its own poor. (That it lets them starve is an internal matter and not one that I feel competent to judge.) Your constant attempts to evade this one basic fact are becoming ludicrous. (By the way, it's "die," even though it's "dying." "Dye" is a word, which is why I mention it. but it refers to a coloring agent or the process of using it. Just to make things more confusing, "dying" is the participial form of both verbs.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Why should they be? Why shouldn't they worry about their own citizens first? Indeed, don't they have a duty to focus on the health and well-being of their citizens before anything else?
Of course you are right. But don't tell me India is going on today only because of the rich countries around the world.
suhredayan wrote:
But don't tell me India is going on today only because of the rich countries around the world
India received an enormous amount of aid from the US, The western European countries, the World Bank and Russia. Without it, famine would have decimated India and it is highly unlikely that her economy would have recovered even now. Them's the facts and I'm sorry you don't like them, but it doesn't change the truth.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface