India test-fires short range nuclear missile
-
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: But as a proud US citizen, a statement like yours has me shocked and saddened. It leads leads me to believe you think the US should take away nuclear arms from other countries. I can't help but feel your opinion (if it is that) is based on lack of knowledge. I believe that in the current balance of power, the Americans are the only ones who have the ability to take away India's nukes. If it came to a possible Nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. I like to believe that somebody would step in and take away their ability to destroy each other. Michael :-)
give up nukes or else ... what?? what are the options US have to take away these without going to war? Economic sanctions do not work. They have already been tried and revoked. There is no rebels which the US can support like in Afghanistan or (as being popularised by the media) in Iraq. There is no rebel force in Pakistan, that US can support in a credible manner. No one has the ability to step in here. India has a no-first-use obligation that has not been reciprocated by Pakistan. I never believe that Pakistan or Indian leadership now is foolish enough to do such a step. It is the stability of Pakistan leadership that poses the problem. Thomas
-
The world is not ruled by the United States government. Most of the problems faced by the Asian regions are post-colonial and have been in the first place, created by the West (particularly Britain). India started its nuclear projects not only as a deterrent, but also to tell the world that NATO and Warsaw pact are not the only groups that have a "legal status" to possess nuclear cability and any treaties among these nations/groups are not binding on the non-aligned nations. India has never been aggressor in any of its wars. It has been in the fore-front of all UN peace-keeping forces, sending its army to different places. But, when it comes to a place in the security council these credentials are not enough. Syria is more qualified to get a US support. Now, after the nuclear tests, Blair has suddenly discovered the great things that India has done and promised support for a security council seat. I do not foresee India being forced into giving up its weapons or anything else, until reciprocated by other nations, including US. US does not have a moral plane, that is higher than anyone else in the world. I hope that Americans understand that they are the only sober people in the world to understand the perils of nuclear warfare. In fact, they are the only country who used it. The whole concept of globalization is flawed. Is it true that human resources is a commodity in business? Why is there restrictions in all developed nations for entry of people for under-developed nations (other than for security reasons), when they advocate their right to sell their products without any restrictions in third world countries. I believe that every country have a right to restrict anything and even fight for the benefit and security of its people. India has a failed social policy due to the flaws in the reservation policies. Kerala, the most socially developed state in India, implemented a land reform project in 1960s, when the fram land was re-partioned among the farmers. It also has the highest rates for hourly wages due to a very strong social movement. The state is now in trouble because industries prefer other states, where they can get people to work for 1/10th the wages. The people who work for the 1/10th wages usually end up in very bad living conditions. I hope that there is someone courageous enough to remove the caste and religion based reservation policies. In India, Muslims and Hindus co-existed till the arrival of the British. The mistrust in each-other have been a direct consequence of British
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In India, Muslims and Hindus co-existed till the arrival of the British. The mistrust in each-other have been a direct consequence of British polcies, that led to the partition of India. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :confused: Correct me if I am wrong but I think there was no 'India' before the British arrived. There were dozens of princely states that were are war with each other. But there was no single entity ever in recorded history. Millions of Indians are starving. The country had a record number of starvation deaths last year. Yet, the President lives in a palace bigger than the White House and maybe even Bill Gate's house. The prime minister and his cabinet live and travel in luxury. They have every reason to be patriotic. All this stuff with Pakistan is just to keep the starving masses happy. 'If we give them more than a healthy dose of patriotism, perhaps they will not notice our billions' is the idea. Suresh
-
Come on Chris what is the difference. Can one tell the difference between acceleration and gravity ? The only true power and respect has to come with a touch of fear. Did not the rise of Nazi Germany teach anyone anything. Is the world becoming full of Chamberlians now when we desperatly need some Churchills. You cannot reason with a tyrant. Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: The only true power and respect has to come with a touch of fear. What utter crap. I've known people in my life whom I would follow to the end of the world becuase I respect and love them. There is absolutely no fear involved in that at all. In my view you can respect (look up to) somone out of love, or respect (be careful of) out of fear. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
The world is not ruled by the United States government. Most of the problems faced by the Asian regions are post-colonial and have been in the first place, created by the West (particularly Britain). India started its nuclear projects not only as a deterrent, but also to tell the world that NATO and Warsaw pact are not the only groups that have a "legal status" to possess nuclear cability and any treaties among these nations/groups are not binding on the non-aligned nations. India has never been aggressor in any of its wars. It has been in the fore-front of all UN peace-keeping forces, sending its army to different places. But, when it comes to a place in the security council these credentials are not enough. Syria is more qualified to get a US support. Now, after the nuclear tests, Blair has suddenly discovered the great things that India has done and promised support for a security council seat. I do not foresee India being forced into giving up its weapons or anything else, until reciprocated by other nations, including US. US does not have a moral plane, that is higher than anyone else in the world. I hope that Americans understand that they are the only sober people in the world to understand the perils of nuclear warfare. In fact, they are the only country who used it. The whole concept of globalization is flawed. Is it true that human resources is a commodity in business? Why is there restrictions in all developed nations for entry of people for under-developed nations (other than for security reasons), when they advocate their right to sell their products without any restrictions in third world countries. I believe that every country have a right to restrict anything and even fight for the benefit and security of its people. India has a failed social policy due to the flaws in the reservation policies. Kerala, the most socially developed state in India, implemented a land reform project in 1960s, when the fram land was re-partioned among the farmers. It also has the highest rates for hourly wages due to a very strong social movement. The state is now in trouble because industries prefer other states, where they can get people to work for 1/10th the wages. The people who work for the 1/10th wages usually end up in very bad living conditions. I hope that there is someone courageous enough to remove the caste and religion based reservation policies. In India, Muslims and Hindus co-existed till the arrival of the British. The mistrust in each-other have been a direct consequence of British
I agree with you right up until the last paragraph. A referendum in Kashmir for Kashmir self determination has been promised several times but never implimented by India. Now it is particularly difficult to impliment with the Kashmir lands under Pakistans control (plus the chunk under Chinas control). The referendum was first promised by Nehru, and the administrator was Admiral Nimitz. Also throwing in the third option of an autonomous Kashmir will only confuse the issue. A number of residents are neither Muslims or Hindus but Buddists, and the demographics of Kashmir and Jammu are diverse with strong groupings in regional areas especially the Kashmir valley. Often we think of these mountainous regions as sparsly populated, but there around 10 milion inhabitants whose voice has never been heard. I do agree a third party mediation will only worsen the situation, but both Pakistan and India have agreed to resolve there differences with negotiation in the past. Unsure about blaming Clement Atlee and co, But the Brits can be blamed for selling the lands into Hindu hands in the 1840's whilst the majority of the population were Muslim. Thus in the 1947 the Maharaja went against the peoples will and Asceded to the Indian Congress. Interesting today marks 52 years since the Brits quit India officially. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In India, Muslims and Hindus co-existed till the arrival of the British. The mistrust in each-other have been a direct consequence of British polcies, that led to the partition of India. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :confused: Correct me if I am wrong but I think there was no 'India' before the British arrived. There were dozens of princely states that were are war with each other. But there was no single entity ever in recorded history. Millions of Indians are starving. The country had a record number of starvation deaths last year. Yet, the President lives in a palace bigger than the White House and maybe even Bill Gate's house. The prime minister and his cabinet live and travel in luxury. They have every reason to be patriotic. All this stuff with Pakistan is just to keep the starving masses happy. 'If we give them more than a healthy dose of patriotism, perhaps they will not notice our billions' is the idea. Suresh
G. Suresh wrote: Correct me if I am wrong but I think there was no 'India' before the British arrived. In the subcontinent there were aprox 580 principalities, (Don't ask me to name them :-) ) But British India encompassed India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ceylon, Bhutan, Nepal, Sirrim, Ceylon, Some of todays Afghanistan and Burma, and some of China, as well as far fetched places like Aden. G. Suresh wrote: All this stuff with Pakistan is just to keep the starving masses happy. Yes, its a bit like a big public cricket match, to the masses. Most common folk are probably unaware of the consequences of Nuclear Action, and can't probably understand why the Govts haven't pushed the button already. :eek: Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Richard Stringer wrote: The only true power and respect has to come with a touch of fear. What utter crap. I've known people in my life whom I would follow to the end of the world becuase I respect and love them. There is absolutely no fear involved in that at all. In my view you can respect (look up to) somone out of love, or respect (be careful of) out of fear. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: What utter crap. Huh, unbeleivable an undiplomatic and harsh comment from Chris Maunder. "I'm going to bookmark this !" :-) Just to draw the arguement out a bit longer :-) Fear has a lot of manifestations not just fear of physical harm. There is fear of rejection, fear of solitude and fear of being wrong to name a few. The RC Pope has power, without masses of finance and military weaponry. Maybe he uses the fear of "hell". :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
I agree with you right up until the last paragraph. A referendum in Kashmir for Kashmir self determination has been promised several times but never implimented by India. Now it is particularly difficult to impliment with the Kashmir lands under Pakistans control (plus the chunk under Chinas control). The referendum was first promised by Nehru, and the administrator was Admiral Nimitz. Also throwing in the third option of an autonomous Kashmir will only confuse the issue. A number of residents are neither Muslims or Hindus but Buddists, and the demographics of Kashmir and Jammu are diverse with strong groupings in regional areas especially the Kashmir valley. Often we think of these mountainous regions as sparsly populated, but there around 10 milion inhabitants whose voice has never been heard. I do agree a third party mediation will only worsen the situation, but both Pakistan and India have agreed to resolve there differences with negotiation in the past. Unsure about blaming Clement Atlee and co, But the Brits can be blamed for selling the lands into Hindu hands in the 1840's whilst the majority of the population were Muslim. Thus in the 1947 the Maharaja went against the peoples will and Asceded to the Indian Congress. Interesting today marks 52 years since the Brits quit India officially. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
There has also been a condition that Pakistan withdraw all armed forces and people who were not permenant residents of Kashmir before the proposed plebiscite. This never happened. The 1947 UN resolution now holds no relevence. Many of native Kashmiris do not live in Kashmir now because of the violence. Both countries can also be accused of infiltrating people into the areas that they control. What I was saying is that: do not conduct a referendum. That will lead to more confusion. Just make the region a independant neutral nation and make India and Pakistan pay a certain amount of money per year for a certain time to the government there as a compensation for the atrocities that they had to face because of the conflict. A UN peace keeping force for the transition can also be considered for a couple of years to oversee this. Once the country is turned into a government elected by the people, everyone else can get out of the place. International aid in rebuilding the region can also help. The region will then have no problems sustaining itself financially, it being a tourist paradise. Thomas
-
Paul Watson wrote: are you actually pro this whole thing Nish? Are you serious? I think he is, and he should be. Until the US (lets face it, if it'll be anyone it will be them) invents a nanite defuser*, every country in the world needs to have a credible nuclear defence system. (note: defence, not offence). The idea being that it will deter anybody else with an ounce of commonsense from attacking them. Of course though, as recent events have shown, not everyone has this sense. * have I been playing Call To Power II for too long? ;) ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group, there was less competition there" - Gandhi
David Wulff wrote: have I been playing Call To Power II for too long? YES ! I haven't played Call to Power, but a "nanite defuser*" being used must be really impressive. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
There has also been a condition that Pakistan withdraw all armed forces and people who were not permenant residents of Kashmir before the proposed plebiscite. This never happened. The 1947 UN resolution now holds no relevence. Many of native Kashmiris do not live in Kashmir now because of the violence. Both countries can also be accused of infiltrating people into the areas that they control. What I was saying is that: do not conduct a referendum. That will lead to more confusion. Just make the region a independant neutral nation and make India and Pakistan pay a certain amount of money per year for a certain time to the government there as a compensation for the atrocities that they had to face because of the conflict. A UN peace keeping force for the transition can also be considered for a couple of years to oversee this. Once the country is turned into a government elected by the people, everyone else can get out of the place. International aid in rebuilding the region can also help. The region will then have no problems sustaining itself financially, it being a tourist paradise. Thomas
Thomas George wrote: That will lead to more confusion. Most likely, Thomas George wrote: There has also been a condition that Pakistan withdraw all armed forces and people who were not permenant residents of Kashmir before the proposed plebiscite. Didn't this condition by India become implimented well after the famous "promise to the world' ? Actually if independence were givin to Kashmir, my opinion is that it should be broken into multiple regions as autonomous states, rather than one entity. The biggest problem towards settlement of the current dispute must simply be "egos" whether its the Indian Govt the Guerillas, or Pakiststan. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Richard Stringer wrote: The only true power and respect has to come with a touch of fear. What utter crap. I've known people in my life whom I would follow to the end of the world becuase I respect and love them. There is absolutely no fear involved in that at all. In my view you can respect (look up to) somone out of love, or respect (be careful of) out of fear. cheers, Chris Maunder
Perhaps your idea of what we were discussing is different from mine. On the level of personal love and respect I.E. that of one individual to another your premise may ( but probably is not ) correct. I hear all the time about religious leaders who lead their constituients to acts such as mass suicide, giving all their possessions to the church ( read them ) and other acts that they would not generally do. We don't call this respect although to the people involved it seems to be a matter of love and respect. Perhaps this is what you have in mind - but I doubt it. You love your mother and father but do you respect them ? To me there is a subtle but defining difference. As to Nation States there will be no love involved. There are countries such as England and the US who have such deep ties that there is mutual respect but even then England does not consult with the US on matters of its national interests - nor would it "respect" our advice. Nope other nations resepect you for the simple reason that you can kick their ass and they know it. At the most fundemental level thats how it works. Egypt, for example, respects Israel because of one good ass whuppin, not out of any other reason. And the second Egypt thinks they can whip Israel the respect will dissappear. Same relationship exists between India and Pakistan. Same between the US and a great many other countries. If the US were to ever reduce its miliary power to the point where any other nation would even consider attacking us we would lose that "respect". We learned that lesson very well on Dec 7,1941 and we are in the process or reminding cwetain terrorist groups of that right now. We would make lousy diplomats would we not !:) Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Perhaps your idea of what we were discussing is different from mine. On the level of personal love and respect I.E. that of one individual to another your premise may ( but probably is not ) correct. I hear all the time about religious leaders who lead their constituients to acts such as mass suicide, giving all their possessions to the church ( read them ) and other acts that they would not generally do. We don't call this respect although to the people involved it seems to be a matter of love and respect. Perhaps this is what you have in mind - but I doubt it. You love your mother and father but do you respect them ? To me there is a subtle but defining difference. As to Nation States there will be no love involved. There are countries such as England and the US who have such deep ties that there is mutual respect but even then England does not consult with the US on matters of its national interests - nor would it "respect" our advice. Nope other nations resepect you for the simple reason that you can kick their ass and they know it. At the most fundemental level thats how it works. Egypt, for example, respects Israel because of one good ass whuppin, not out of any other reason. And the second Egypt thinks they can whip Israel the respect will dissappear. Same relationship exists between India and Pakistan. Same between the US and a great many other countries. If the US were to ever reduce its miliary power to the point where any other nation would even consider attacking us we would lose that "respect". We learned that lesson very well on Dec 7,1941 and we are in the process or reminding cwetain terrorist groups of that right now. We would make lousy diplomats would we not !:) Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: We would make lousy diplomats would we not ! Yes, the US sucks at diplomacy. Being so bad at diplomacy only leads to future problems, whether in one days time or in a hundred years time. True as some one once said "Nations do not have friends but they have interests." Whilst the US State Dept, is made up of talented individuals, the decisions they make are ridiculous, this being caused by the controlling Politicians. Richard Stringer wrote: If the US were to ever reduce its miliary power to the point where any other nation would even consider attacking us we would lose that "respect". Darn right, and the US lives in "fear" of this. If a "nanite defuser" was ever created the whole US economic system would crumble. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Perhaps your idea of what we were discussing is different from mine. On the level of personal love and respect I.E. that of one individual to another your premise may ( but probably is not ) correct. I hear all the time about religious leaders who lead their constituients to acts such as mass suicide, giving all their possessions to the church ( read them ) and other acts that they would not generally do. We don't call this respect although to the people involved it seems to be a matter of love and respect. Perhaps this is what you have in mind - but I doubt it. You love your mother and father but do you respect them ? To me there is a subtle but defining difference. As to Nation States there will be no love involved. There are countries such as England and the US who have such deep ties that there is mutual respect but even then England does not consult with the US on matters of its national interests - nor would it "respect" our advice. Nope other nations resepect you for the simple reason that you can kick their ass and they know it. At the most fundemental level thats how it works. Egypt, for example, respects Israel because of one good ass whuppin, not out of any other reason. And the second Egypt thinks they can whip Israel the respect will dissappear. Same relationship exists between India and Pakistan. Same between the US and a great many other countries. If the US were to ever reduce its miliary power to the point where any other nation would even consider attacking us we would lose that "respect". We learned that lesson very well on Dec 7,1941 and we are in the process or reminding cwetain terrorist groups of that right now. We would make lousy diplomats would we not !:) Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: that of one individual to another your premise may ( but probably is not ) correct Ooh - harsh ;) Richard Stringer wrote: You love your mother and father but do you respect them ? Absolutely. The older I get the more I learn about who they are and admire and respect what they have done (in the way they lead their lives, in their character, in the way I now understand they were right all these years, and in their ability not to sell me to medicine when I was a 4 year old brat). There is no fear in this respect. I also respect the physisists and mathemeticians I studied at University, and people like Ghandi and the Dalai Lama. This is all respect or personal qualities, and not the respect of power that the original discussion was about. I'm arguing on the entire concept of respect, and not just one manifestation. Maybe I stepped out of the bounds of this argument... Richard Stringer wrote: Nope other nations resepect you for the simple reason that you can kick their ass and they know it You talk about respect in terms of 'being subservient to', or 'being able to be influenced by'. Is it possible for one nation to respect another (through that other country's achievements) without feeling inferior to it? Or am I reading you wrong? cheers, Chris Maunder
-
I hope India realise that one day the Americans are going to come and take away their Nukes from them and Pakistan. I'm sure that a better use for their missile technology can be found - how about Space Flight. The world needs more nations in space. Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Good news for nuke fanatics Personally I think Nukes have been pretty good for the world, it made the Americans and Russians think twice before trying to attack each other during the cold war. I do worry though that it won't be long before some fanatic somewhere in the world with a nuke says "what the hell, lets go down in history" Michael :-)
Michael P Butler wrote: I hope India realise that one day the Americans are going to come and take away their Nukes from them and Pakistan Let them just try!!! Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
Richard Stringer wrote: that of one individual to another your premise may ( but probably is not ) correct Ooh - harsh ;) Richard Stringer wrote: You love your mother and father but do you respect them ? Absolutely. The older I get the more I learn about who they are and admire and respect what they have done (in the way they lead their lives, in their character, in the way I now understand they were right all these years, and in their ability not to sell me to medicine when I was a 4 year old brat). There is no fear in this respect. I also respect the physisists and mathemeticians I studied at University, and people like Ghandi and the Dalai Lama. This is all respect or personal qualities, and not the respect of power that the original discussion was about. I'm arguing on the entire concept of respect, and not just one manifestation. Maybe I stepped out of the bounds of this argument... Richard Stringer wrote: Nope other nations resepect you for the simple reason that you can kick their ass and they know it You talk about respect in terms of 'being subservient to', or 'being able to be influenced by'. Is it possible for one nation to respect another (through that other country's achievements) without feeling inferior to it? Or am I reading you wrong? cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris said : "You talk about respect in terms of 'being subservient to', or 'being able to be influenced by'. Is it possible for one nation to respect another (through that other country's achievements) without feeling inferior to it? Or am I reading you wrong? " I believe its possible if the countries are enough alike. One of the strongest bonds between countries, in my opinion , is that between the UK and the US. They have been and probably always will be our one true ally. We are bonded by a common heritage, culture , and language. But yea once upon a time we had a little fight :) However that is not true for most other nations. They generally have political, religious, cultural , and language differences that make it difficult to exhort their commonality. Religion probably being the biggest stumbling block, followed by political. BTW Countries don't achive anything. Individuals do that. Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Richard Stringer wrote: We would make lousy diplomats would we not ! Yes, the US sucks at diplomacy. Being so bad at diplomacy only leads to future problems, whether in one days time or in a hundred years time. True as some one once said "Nations do not have friends but they have interests." Whilst the US State Dept, is made up of talented individuals, the decisions they make are ridiculous, this being caused by the controlling Politicians. Richard Stringer wrote: If the US were to ever reduce its miliary power to the point where any other nation would even consider attacking us we would lose that "respect". Darn right, and the US lives in "fear" of this. If a "nanite defuser" was ever created the whole US economic system would crumble. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
Colinj sez: "Yes, the US sucks at diplomacy" Well in most cases we only do it as a courtesy. Its not really necessary when you are holding all the cards. Colin sez: "Whilst the US State Dept, is made up of talented individuals, the decisions they make are ridiculous, this being caused by the controlling Politicians." That is your personal opinion. I may also say that your opinion and 2.50 US will get you a cup of latte at Starbucks. I think that the great majority of the so called ridiculous decisions are the best compromise available for the interest of the US. I could care less about the other countries. Let them make their own ridiculous decisions - we will keep ours. Colin sez: "Darn right, and the US lives in "fear" of this. If a "nanite defuser" was ever created the whole US economic system would crumble." Nope we would simply take over the worlds economic scene, have all the money, and dole it out to the favored few. We can win no matter what the playing field. I am sure that the worlds greatest fear is not nuclear war or global warming but that the US will become seriously interested in rugby and soccer. We would , of course, dominate the world in 10-12 years taking wahtever pride the other poor countries still posess with it. Cricket is safe because it is a completly non understandable game in which some sexual or mental deviancy is a probable necessary ingrediant Yall have fun now Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Michael P Butler wrote: I hope India realise that one day the Americans are going to come and take away their Nukes from them and Pakistan Let them just try!!! Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
Last time I was in the loop, we had no plans to do so. We're allies, after all! But if it should ever be deemed necessary to do so, no problem. It shouldn't take more than about twenty minutes...
-
Colinj sez: "Yes, the US sucks at diplomacy" Well in most cases we only do it as a courtesy. Its not really necessary when you are holding all the cards. Colin sez: "Whilst the US State Dept, is made up of talented individuals, the decisions they make are ridiculous, this being caused by the controlling Politicians." That is your personal opinion. I may also say that your opinion and 2.50 US will get you a cup of latte at Starbucks. I think that the great majority of the so called ridiculous decisions are the best compromise available for the interest of the US. I could care less about the other countries. Let them make their own ridiculous decisions - we will keep ours. Colin sez: "Darn right, and the US lives in "fear" of this. If a "nanite defuser" was ever created the whole US economic system would crumble." Nope we would simply take over the worlds economic scene, have all the money, and dole it out to the favored few. We can win no matter what the playing field. I am sure that the worlds greatest fear is not nuclear war or global warming but that the US will become seriously interested in rugby and soccer. We would , of course, dominate the world in 10-12 years taking wahtever pride the other poor countries still posess with it. Cricket is safe because it is a completly non understandable game in which some sexual or mental deviancy is a probable necessary ingrediant Yall have fun now Richard If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: That is your personal opinion. My opinion also would be that over 90% of the world would agree with me however often for irrational reasons. Richard Stringer wrote: We can win no matter what the playing field. I am sure that the worlds greatest fear is not nuclear war or global warming but that the US will become seriously interested in rugby and soccer. Neither sports as they are currently played would fit in with your broadcasters arrangements. So I guess you would have to reinnovate them as well. Richard Stringer wrote: Cricket is safe because it is a completly non understandable game in which some sexual or mental deviancy is a probable necessary ingrediant Cricket is above the understanding level of meer men. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Last time I was in the loop, we had no plans to do so. We're allies, after all! But if it should ever be deemed necessary to do so, no problem. It shouldn't take more than about twenty minutes...
LOL I don't think you understand nuclear fusion roger. A country with sufficient nuclear capabilities can actually set up a nuclear bomb within it's mainland which will blow up a good portion of the the earth as well as set a radiation storm so fierce that life of any kind will cease to exist anywhere on the planet, even the very bottoms of the deep deep oceans would be devoid of life. Earth would be dead. Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
The world is not ruled by the United States government. Most of the problems faced by the Asian regions are post-colonial and have been in the first place, created by the West (particularly Britain). India started its nuclear projects not only as a deterrent, but also to tell the world that NATO and Warsaw pact are not the only groups that have a "legal status" to possess nuclear cability and any treaties among these nations/groups are not binding on the non-aligned nations. India has never been aggressor in any of its wars. It has been in the fore-front of all UN peace-keeping forces, sending its army to different places. But, when it comes to a place in the security council these credentials are not enough. Syria is more qualified to get a US support. Now, after the nuclear tests, Blair has suddenly discovered the great things that India has done and promised support for a security council seat. I do not foresee India being forced into giving up its weapons or anything else, until reciprocated by other nations, including US. US does not have a moral plane, that is higher than anyone else in the world. I hope that Americans understand that they are the only sober people in the world to understand the perils of nuclear warfare. In fact, they are the only country who used it. The whole concept of globalization is flawed. Is it true that human resources is a commodity in business? Why is there restrictions in all developed nations for entry of people for under-developed nations (other than for security reasons), when they advocate their right to sell their products without any restrictions in third world countries. I believe that every country have a right to restrict anything and even fight for the benefit and security of its people. India has a failed social policy due to the flaws in the reservation policies. Kerala, the most socially developed state in India, implemented a land reform project in 1960s, when the fram land was re-partioned among the farmers. It also has the highest rates for hourly wages due to a very strong social movement. The state is now in trouble because industries prefer other states, where they can get people to work for 1/10th the wages. The people who work for the 1/10th wages usually end up in very bad living conditions. I hope that there is someone courageous enough to remove the caste and religion based reservation policies. In India, Muslims and Hindus co-existed till the arrival of the British. The mistrust in each-other have been a direct consequence of British
Thomas George wrote: The world is not ruled by the United States government :-) I hope everyone else is listening to that Nish p.s. I am hoping Microsoft will take over the USA. Then we'd have "nuclear fusion .NET" :-) Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
I agree with you right up until the last paragraph. A referendum in Kashmir for Kashmir self determination has been promised several times but never implimented by India. Now it is particularly difficult to impliment with the Kashmir lands under Pakistans control (plus the chunk under Chinas control). The referendum was first promised by Nehru, and the administrator was Admiral Nimitz. Also throwing in the third option of an autonomous Kashmir will only confuse the issue. A number of residents are neither Muslims or Hindus but Buddists, and the demographics of Kashmir and Jammu are diverse with strong groupings in regional areas especially the Kashmir valley. Often we think of these mountainous regions as sparsly populated, but there around 10 milion inhabitants whose voice has never been heard. I do agree a third party mediation will only worsen the situation, but both Pakistan and India have agreed to resolve there differences with negotiation in the past. Unsure about blaming Clement Atlee and co, But the Brits can be blamed for selling the lands into Hindu hands in the 1840's whilst the majority of the population were Muslim. Thus in the 1947 the Maharaja went against the peoples will and Asceded to the Indian Congress. Interesting today marks 52 years since the Brits quit India officially. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
Oh Boy! Colin, you know more about India than I seem to do. Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut