"They" are not like "us": the most common bias of international politics
-
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
-
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.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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).
One of the reasons she lost so badly in '65, imho.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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:
But it is not an analog in this case.
"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" link[^]
Oakman wrote:
Your constant attempts to evade this one basic fact are becoming ludicrous.
I appreciate that US and other rich countries have always helped India.[^]
-
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
Oakman wrote:
it is highly unlikely that her economy would have recovered even now. Them's the facts
For recovering there should have been a collapse. After the existence of India as a country there was no economic collapse to recover from (even during 1990s when most of the Asia collapsed). Poverty was always there and is there even today. The reason for US to provide aid and later stopping it has more to do with the politics. Few reasons I know has been mentioned earlier.
-
Oakman wrote:
But it is not an analog in this case.
"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" link[^]
Oakman wrote:
Your constant attempts to evade this one basic fact are becoming ludicrous.
I appreciate that US and other rich countries have always helped India.[^]
suhredayan wrote:
In 2002 and 2003, 10,000 tons of Genetically Engineered (GE) corn-soya blend from the U.S. was sent back
Okay. But the food program - as you yourself noted - had been going on since the 1950's.
suhredayan wrote:
I appreciate that US and other rich countries have always helped India.[^]
That is the first time you've said that without a "but" coming immediately afterwards.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
it is highly unlikely that her economy would have recovered even now. Them's the facts
For recovering there should have been a collapse. After the existence of India as a country there was no economic collapse to recover from (even during 1990s when most of the Asia collapsed). Poverty was always there and is there even today. The reason for US to provide aid and later stopping it has more to do with the politics. Few reasons I know has been mentioned earlier.
suhredayan wrote:
For recovering there should have been a collapse
That's right there was no recovery needed, because the U.S. The Western European Nations and Russia poured in massive aid and staved off what would have otherwise been a collapse. No matter what you say, no matter how you say it, you cannot escape the truth of this statement.
suhredayan wrote:
The reason for US to provide aid and later stopping it has more to do with the politics.
And therefore the hundreds of thousands of people who didn't starve to death don't count???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
suhredayan wrote:
In 2002 and 2003, 10,000 tons of Genetically Engineered (GE) corn-soya blend from the U.S. was sent back
Okay. But the food program - as you yourself noted - had been going on since the 1950's.
suhredayan wrote:
I appreciate that US and other rich countries have always helped India.[^]
That is the first time you've said that without a "but" coming immediately afterwards.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
That is the first time you've said that without a "but" coming immediately afterwards.
That is because you stopped mentioning US is providing aid for nothing.