Understanding American English
-
I don't want to get into the Israel history. All I said was, Israel would NOT have got the same amount of attention that Kashmir gets now, if there was no oil in the region. US is hated mostly because they are seen as a biased mediator in the Israel-Palestine issue. When you are aiding one side militarily, your credibility tends to get affected. Moreover, the people in the middle-east see US installing and removing dictatorships and kings for their selfish interests; and wonder how they would feel, if it was done to them in return. For US citizens, removing a democratic government in Iran and installing Shah was just another incident that should be forgotten as a byproduct of the cold war. But, for the Iranian people, their fledgling democracy of 2 years was overthrown by CIA and British Intelligence - and replaced by a dictator - and then by an Islamic fundamentalist revolution. Now, they are isolated and is a part of the "axis of evil" - and the people are rising up again slowly for their rights. How can the people in Iran ever accept United States or Britain as a friend - when they started almost 50 years of oppression from the time Mossadeiah (i believe that is the correct spelling) was overthrown because he nationalized oil and threw out US and UK companies, and his decision was upheld in the world trade court or something like that. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
I would rather see the US butt out of other people's business, until we are directly affected. I don't know the history of Iran, or our involvement in its history, but I do know they threaten us with terrorism now. Whether its our fault or not, doesn't matter to me anymore. As an American citizen, I want to be safe. We cannot change what happened in the past, so we have to live and deal with the consequences and learn not to make the same mistakes again.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
I would rather see the US butt out of other people's business, until we are directly affected. I don't know the history of Iran, or our involvement in its history, but I do know they threaten us with terrorism now. Whether its our fault or not, doesn't matter to me anymore. As an American citizen, I want to be safe. We cannot change what happened in the past, so we have to live and deal with the consequences and learn not to make the same mistakes again.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiThe terrorism from Iran is IMO, not supported by the general population in Iran. I foresee another war in future between Iran and US to remove the regime there, because of terrorist links. But, looking at it from an Iranian common man (You are a US common man, who cannot decide US policy. He cannot decide Iranian policy even to the extent you can influence US policy), he sees the new war also as a byproduct of the actions of US and Britain. The trouble is they see no justice in this - because they are in 50 years of oppression because of US and UK; and now they will be in a war. As an Iranian citizen, he wants to be safe. We cannot change what happened in the past, so we have to live and deal with the consequences and learn not to make the same mistakes again. I don't think that the US administration has learned anything from the past. For starters, they should withdraw from being a mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and get some truly neutral mediator (someone like Norway who mediated the current truce between LTTE and SriLanka). Since I got into this debate with you, I want to make it clear. I have no particular allegiance than to my motherland, which is India. So, I say things the way I see it. It have no special love or hate for US, Russia, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq or any other country. The whole world order is run by the "law of the jungle" - and it is a world order created by the West. It is obvious when Syria is voted into the UN security council ahead of India (which has been a stable democracy for the past 50+ years, after the British left), and US has always opposed a permenant seat for India in UN security council. UN was an attempt at civilization, but gets bypassed by selfish interests way too often. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
The terrorism from Iran is IMO, not supported by the general population in Iran. I foresee another war in future between Iran and US to remove the regime there, because of terrorist links. But, looking at it from an Iranian common man (You are a US common man, who cannot decide US policy. He cannot decide Iranian policy even to the extent you can influence US policy), he sees the new war also as a byproduct of the actions of US and Britain. The trouble is they see no justice in this - because they are in 50 years of oppression because of US and UK; and now they will be in a war. As an Iranian citizen, he wants to be safe. We cannot change what happened in the past, so we have to live and deal with the consequences and learn not to make the same mistakes again. I don't think that the US administration has learned anything from the past. For starters, they should withdraw from being a mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and get some truly neutral mediator (someone like Norway who mediated the current truce between LTTE and SriLanka). Since I got into this debate with you, I want to make it clear. I have no particular allegiance than to my motherland, which is India. So, I say things the way I see it. It have no special love or hate for US, Russia, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq or any other country. The whole world order is run by the "law of the jungle" - and it is a world order created by the West. It is obvious when Syria is voted into the UN security council ahead of India (which has been a stable democracy for the past 50+ years, after the British left), and US has always opposed a permenant seat for India in UN security council. UN was an attempt at civilization, but gets bypassed by selfish interests way too often. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: I don't think that the US administration has learned anything from the past. For starters, they should withdraw from being a mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and get some truly neutral mediator (someone like Norway who mediated the current truce between LTTE and SriLanka). We are bound to protect Israel, so I agree that we should not be a negotiator since we are biased in that regard. However, if we gave up that role, the president would never hear the end if it form the left wingers. Thomas George wrote: "law of the jungle" - and it is a world order created by the West. No, I disagree. The West is no different than the rest of the world. No matter who was the super power, the l"aw of the jungle" would still be in order. It human nature that is the problem. Thomas George wrote: US has always opposed a permenant seat for India in UN security council I thought the US and India were friendlier than that? I, and I'm sure most Americans have no problem with Indians (heck, most of our Doctors are Indians ;) ) and would rather see you on the Sec. Council rather than Syria. BTW, the UN is a joke, IMO.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Thomas George wrote: I don't think that the US administration has learned anything from the past. For starters, they should withdraw from being a mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and get some truly neutral mediator (someone like Norway who mediated the current truce between LTTE and SriLanka). We are bound to protect Israel, so I agree that we should not be a negotiator since we are biased in that regard. However, if we gave up that role, the president would never hear the end if it form the left wingers. Thomas George wrote: "law of the jungle" - and it is a world order created by the West. No, I disagree. The West is no different than the rest of the world. No matter who was the super power, the l"aw of the jungle" would still be in order. It human nature that is the problem. Thomas George wrote: US has always opposed a permenant seat for India in UN security council I thought the US and India were friendlier than that? I, and I'm sure most Americans have no problem with Indians (heck, most of our Doctors are Indians ;) ) and would rather see you on the Sec. Council rather than Syria. BTW, the UN is a joke, IMO.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiUN is certainly being made a joke. There are very few people, who want it working - and that is why it is not working. When I say that the current world order is created by the West, I do not imply that it would have been better if someone else created it. I just mean that there is no point whining about UN and France and Germany and Turkey and all. After all, the current world order was created by the victors of WWII. Regarding India's position historically and now: Indian freedom movement supported British Army in WWII - against Hitler. From a common enemy perspective, India should have been rooting for the Axis forces, because Britain was occupying India for the past 150 years suppressing many freedom movements by force. At that time, Pakistan and India were not partioned - so the stance was a Pakistani one as well (supported by the Muslim League) Now, India is not liked by the major powers to be in the UN sec council because it opposes an arms-control regime that allows the major powers to proliferate weapons, while not allowing others. They want it to be applied to everyone on the same level. They have not signed NPT because of this position; and Pakistan has not signed because India has not. Also, I do not support the Indian position in Kashmir. I would rather like an autonomous and demilitarized Kashmir combining the Indian and Pakistani parts, and protected by a four-party non-agression/defense agreement by its major neighbours - India, Pakistan, Russia and China. IMO, it is ego and politcal fallout to the major political parties and rulers on both sides that prevents such a solution. Both sides will have a hard time explaining why so many people died over the years over Kashmir, if this is all it takes to solve it. Like many people have said before, no one is perfect. But, unless nations are willing to do an introspection of their policies; and what have been the fallout of those, we can never expect peaceful co-existence. I would ideally love to see the super-powers do that, because they have the most influence on world affairs. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Bruce Duncan wrote: War has rules? Apparently back in Roman times there was this particular "game" which was popular. The slaves would be set loose on each other, permitted to do anything to win the fight, but no weapons were involved. The only rule was that you weren't allowed to pop your opponent's eye out. Which is where we get the saying "It's all fun and games, till somebody loses an eye" Now if only I could store useful info in my brain... :rolleyes:
I may try to delete my CP cookies. But its almost like tossing the keys of the appartment into the river. - Andreas Saurwein
Ta, I learn something new everyday :) Megan Forbes wrote: Now if only I could store useful info in my brain... If you discover the secret let me know. ;) For some wierd reason, I have knack for remembering IP numbers, but not telephone numbers. :rolleyes:
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron. -
UN is certainly being made a joke. There are very few people, who want it working - and that is why it is not working. When I say that the current world order is created by the West, I do not imply that it would have been better if someone else created it. I just mean that there is no point whining about UN and France and Germany and Turkey and all. After all, the current world order was created by the victors of WWII. Regarding India's position historically and now: Indian freedom movement supported British Army in WWII - against Hitler. From a common enemy perspective, India should have been rooting for the Axis forces, because Britain was occupying India for the past 150 years suppressing many freedom movements by force. At that time, Pakistan and India were not partioned - so the stance was a Pakistani one as well (supported by the Muslim League) Now, India is not liked by the major powers to be in the UN sec council because it opposes an arms-control regime that allows the major powers to proliferate weapons, while not allowing others. They want it to be applied to everyone on the same level. They have not signed NPT because of this position; and Pakistan has not signed because India has not. Also, I do not support the Indian position in Kashmir. I would rather like an autonomous and demilitarized Kashmir combining the Indian and Pakistani parts, and protected by a four-party non-agression/defense agreement by its major neighbours - India, Pakistan, Russia and China. IMO, it is ego and politcal fallout to the major political parties and rulers on both sides that prevents such a solution. Both sides will have a hard time explaining why so many people died over the years over Kashmir, if this is all it takes to solve it. Like many people have said before, no one is perfect. But, unless nations are willing to do an introspection of their policies; and what have been the fallout of those, we can never expect peaceful co-existence. I would ideally love to see the super-powers do that, because they have the most influence on world affairs. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: Also, I do not support the Indian position in Kashmir. I would rather like an autonomous and demilitarized Kashmir combining the Indian and Pakistani parts, and protected by a four-party non-agression/defense agreement by its major neighbours - India, Pakistan, Russia and China. While I applaud you for coming up with a solution, I don't think it is necessarily the best one. What about the people in J&K? Will anyone ask them too? Doing what you want seems to me just getting rid of the problem. We need to solve the problem, not get rid of it. IMO, the problem has been perpetuated because of these reasons: 1. Pride + ego 2. Bad politics If Kashmir is made into a separate country, how will it run its economy? On tourism alone? Or will we have to look after it too, just like we are doing for Bhutan? Because Jammu and Kashmir is right now a state of India, we'll have more sentiments for its well being once it is made into a separate country. So if the other three countries (Pakistan, China, Russia) don't look after it, we will. If we do, then why can't we keep it as an integral part of India? This is IMO what most Kashmiris feel too, remaining a part of India, that is. Look at the elections, which are held there every time. Although a referendum would be able to tell exactly. But in order to do that, we need to have a peaceful and fear (from terroists) free environment there. For that to happen, we need the co-operation of a certain neighbouring country, and that co-operation has not been forthcoming so far. :) I think a non political organisation needs to come forward and spread the message and work in both India and Pakistan to make the people understand. Kashmir is a part of India and should remain so. Unless they themselves want otherwise.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
Thomas George wrote: Also, I do not support the Indian position in Kashmir. I would rather like an autonomous and demilitarized Kashmir combining the Indian and Pakistani parts, and protected by a four-party non-agression/defense agreement by its major neighbours - India, Pakistan, Russia and China. While I applaud you for coming up with a solution, I don't think it is necessarily the best one. What about the people in J&K? Will anyone ask them too? Doing what you want seems to me just getting rid of the problem. We need to solve the problem, not get rid of it. IMO, the problem has been perpetuated because of these reasons: 1. Pride + ego 2. Bad politics If Kashmir is made into a separate country, how will it run its economy? On tourism alone? Or will we have to look after it too, just like we are doing for Bhutan? Because Jammu and Kashmir is right now a state of India, we'll have more sentiments for its well being once it is made into a separate country. So if the other three countries (Pakistan, China, Russia) don't look after it, we will. If we do, then why can't we keep it as an integral part of India? This is IMO what most Kashmiris feel too, remaining a part of India, that is. Look at the elections, which are held there every time. Although a referendum would be able to tell exactly. But in order to do that, we need to have a peaceful and fear (from terroists) free environment there. For that to happen, we need the co-operation of a certain neighbouring country, and that co-operation has not been forthcoming so far. :) I think a non political organisation needs to come forward and spread the message and work in both India and Pakistan to make the people understand. Kashmir is a part of India and should remain so. Unless they themselves want otherwise.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Autonomy is what they wanted all along. India and Pakistan needs to fund their initial years for the prolonged conflict, without looking at constructive options to solve it. Getting into a "who is responsible" battle does not hekp anyone. As you said, the referendum and polls can happen only when it is peaceful; and who will be the trusted election commission? India would not allow a third-party mediation; especially United States - because of the military ties between Pakistan and US and the strategic location of Kashmir with reference to China. Kashmir has two parts - Indian and Pakistani; which makes Kashmir not an integral part of India. It is split between India and Kashmir. ...and the militants will continue to haunt it, and call any process that happens there rigged. So, I suggested this because India can act maturely, while addressing the issue of strategic military location by making it demilitarized. I suggested the most painless way to solve the issue for all concerned, that I could think of. Pakistan can India can sell the loss of territory to the other side. Kashmiris get their freedom; and the militants lose their objective. As far as the sustanance of the economy is concerned, if it were not for terrorism, Kashmiri economy would be more than sustaining itself. Naturally, it will require work on the part of the people there; but it is not fair to say that they will need to be taken care of for ever, when they never had an opportunity to build their state. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Ta, I learn something new everyday :) Megan Forbes wrote: Now if only I could store useful info in my brain... If you discover the secret let me know. ;) For some wierd reason, I have knack for remembering IP numbers, but not telephone numbers. :rolleyes:
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron.For some wierd reason, I have knack for remembering IP numbers, but not telephone numbers Is it a buffer overflow on the third part? Change it from a byte to an int. Anyway, it is good that you are not having an access violation, causing you to act wierd. :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Autonomy is what they wanted all along. India and Pakistan needs to fund their initial years for the prolonged conflict, without looking at constructive options to solve it. Getting into a "who is responsible" battle does not hekp anyone. As you said, the referendum and polls can happen only when it is peaceful; and who will be the trusted election commission? India would not allow a third-party mediation; especially United States - because of the military ties between Pakistan and US and the strategic location of Kashmir with reference to China. Kashmir has two parts - Indian and Pakistani; which makes Kashmir not an integral part of India. It is split between India and Kashmir. ...and the militants will continue to haunt it, and call any process that happens there rigged. So, I suggested this because India can act maturely, while addressing the issue of strategic military location by making it demilitarized. I suggested the most painless way to solve the issue for all concerned, that I could think of. Pakistan can India can sell the loss of territory to the other side. Kashmiris get their freedom; and the militants lose their objective. As far as the sustanance of the economy is concerned, if it were not for terrorism, Kashmiri economy would be more than sustaining itself. Naturally, it will require work on the part of the people there; but it is not fair to say that they will need to be taken care of for ever, when they never had an opportunity to build their state. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: Getting into a "who is responsible" battle does not hekp anyone. Exactly my point of view. Let's forget who is responsible for the mess, and whether Kashmir should have gone to Indians or Pakistanis at the time of partition. All that is a lot of years behind and no use arguing that now. Instead, a constructive approach to solve the problem should be taken. Thomas George wrote: Kashmir has two parts - Indian and Pakistani; which makes Kashmir not an integral part of India. Yes, but I was talking about the Indian part, not the Pakistani occupied part. Bad choice of words, I guess. Thomas George wrote: but it is not fair to say that they will need to be taken care of for ever, when they never had an opportunity to build their state. Yes, I admit I was a bit quick in making that remark. Of course, with time they will be able to sustain themselves. There is tourism, timber, hydroelectricty, fruits, and lots of other things which depend on natural resources. Plus they will be able to do much more in due time. I don't know what the solution is, I wish I did. Your way seems to me a plausible one, though I'm not sure I want that to happen. I'd love Kashmir to remain a part of India. But if the Kashmiris want otherwise, I'm all for it. The only problem is, what to do till we are able to hold a fair and fear free referendum to find out what they want? And even then, as you pointed out, who will be the trusted election commission?
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
ROK_RShadow wrote: Yes if you want to be technical we did show Iraqi prisioners on CNN. We DID NOT however show dead Iraqi soldiers bloody on the ground, will bullet holes in their head. BIG Difference! Yes, there is a difference. But still, showing the prisoners on TV is a violation of the Geneva convention, right? I'm not too informed about the stipulations of the Geneva convention, so I may be wrong here. I'd like to hear it from someone who knows more than me.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Rohit Sinha wrote: But still, showing the prisoners on TV is a violation of the Geneva convention, right? Not quite IMHO, you can show POWs on TV, you just can't interrogate or humiliate prisoners on TV.
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: But still, showing the prisoners on TV is a violation of the Geneva convention, right? Not quite IMHO, you can show POWs on TV, you just can't interrogate or humiliate prisoners on TV.
Ah, so humiliate is the key word here. Thanks for the clarification. :)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
The actual violation of the Geneva convention is that the prisoners were forced to give interviews to the media - pictures of the prisoners is not against the Geneva Convention. Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Thanks for the clarification. :)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
Samer12 wrote: I think American and british armies are having hard time there dont you think? Yes they are in trouble because Iraqis are violating the law of war[^] :-D :-D :-D Are there any ethics of war or everything is fair in war? IMO everything is fair in war, because war is a war ..
John-theKing wrote: IMO everything is fair in war, because war is a war .. I agree, but what a stink it would make if the US nuked Iraq! X|