An Informative Poll - USA

John theKing

Rohit Sinha wrote: show them that we aren't all that bad. You are not bad, we know and i tell you that our leaders are not making too much propaganda, this is being done by the leaders of India. Mr. I heard in news few hours ago in which LK Advani was quoted saying that Pakistan province of Sindh will be the part of India within this decade. Now tell me after listening this statement, do you expect Pakistani people stop "hating" you.

David Wulff

Three things: I noticed question 15 had a significant section of the answers removed... :laugh: People pray for President Bush?! WTF? Is that like "please god may a giant piano fall from the sky", or "please make him comprehendable"? :~ Boycotting French/German produce? Man - I thought you guys were just joking about all that. How childish can you get? :wtf:

David Wulff

"I feel inclined to blow my mind, Get hung up feeding ducks with a bun. They all come out to groove about; Be nicer than fun in the sun." - Itchycoo Park (Small Faces)

Brit

Mike Gaskey wrote: The responses to question #26 highlights what I believe to be a growing grassroots desire (conservative circles) to consider the United Nations as irrelevant and an organization the US should abandon. Have you ever seen this website: http://www.getusout.com/[^] ? Mike Gaskey wrote: That would mean that the French position, promising to veto any second (okay, any 18th) resolution is having the reverse effect - which assumes that France would like the American public to support it's position. The French position is actually harder than most people realize. In an interview with Dominique de Villepin (foreign minister of France), the interviewer asked him what he would think if the US invaded Iraq and discovered thousands of tons of chemical weapons. He replied that it would mean that inspections should've been given more time. That's a cautious approach (because if he replies differently, and the US does find thousands of tons of chemical weapons, he'll look really bad). But, it's a terribly bad position to take. Essentially, it says that France will not, under any conditions, support military action against Iraq, so Iraq can do whatever it wants because the worst France will ever do is complain. Mike Gaskey wrote: _A follow up to my comments regarding the UN, interesting source. http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=23668\[^\]_ One of my friends (from India) complains a great deal about the UN and its lack of relevancy. It's easy to point instances where the UN has failed to prevent wars as 'evidence' that the UN is ineffectual. I don't see that as a very good complaint. Looking at the trend in wars over history, the number of inter-country wars in the world has been in decline. However, civil wars have been on the rise. Arguably, the UN has caused a reduction in inter-country wars. But, if the main complaint is that the UN isn't doing enough to stop wars, then we have to ask, "Would we fear the UN if it were more powerful?" Right now, the US has no rival in the world. The existence of a powerful UN military force would raise the possibility of the rise of a rogue UN leader threatening the US or imposing its will badly. If the UN was lead by a simple majority, the Communists would've been in control of the UN back in the Cold War. Further, there are instances of bad decis

Brit

David Wulff wrote: Boycotting French/German produce? Man - I thought you guys were just joking about all that. How childish can you get? Yeah, it's pretty stupid. A couple days ago, however, I saw a story about a town in the US that was declaring a "buy German/French" month, because they thought it was really stupid that people seriously talked about boycotting German/French products. :) ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

Mike Gaskey

KaЯl wrote: " Do you favor or oppose allowing the government to use any means necessary, including physical torture, to obtain information from prisoners that might protect the United States from terrorist attacks" Favor, no doubt at all. KaЯl wrote: "If there were a possibility that a member of your own family could be saved, then would you favor or oppose allowing the government to use physical torture to obtain information from terrorist prisoners?" Favor, no doubt at all. KaЯl wrote: Is Fox trying to promote physical torture ? That is a silly question, but you knew that. KaЯl wrote: BTW, Fox belongs to Murdoch's Evil Empire, doesn't it? Now you'll have to explain that one. Just how does a news reporting organization become "evil" - or is it because they allow news that hasn't been filtered through a leftist lens? Prior to FoxNews becoming available here in the USA, all the news was filtered through the leftist lens I just referenced. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN (okay, the Evil Turner Empire), CNN-HN (more of that evil) - all leaned left. With FoxNews as competition even MSNBC has tried and continues to try to get audience share by allowing a couple of conservative pundits on the air: Alan Keyes (one of the best, although they muzzled him and the show failed), Chris Matthews (could almost be considered a moderate, whatever the h*ll that is), and now Michael Savage who is to the right of Rush Limbaugh. FoxNews draws a large market share becaue they do allow a conservative view although they always balance it with a liberal view. The largest draw they have is an independent (few will agree)who adopts positions that vary depending on the subject. No one can compete with him in his time slot because he is an honest agent, Bill O'Reilly. Mike

Rohit Sinha

John-theKing wrote: I heard in news few hours ago in which LK Advani was quoted saying that Pakistan province of Sindh will be the part of India within this decade. :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: This is exactly why I say that most of what you hear about us is propaganda. He did not say any such thing. What he did say however, was that if we accept the logic that Jammu and Kashmir should be separated from India because of the Muslim concentration, and because some very few people demand it, Sindh should be separated from Pakistan too. You can see that he was saying that just like it is unacceptable, wrong and illogical for Pakistan to make Sindh separate, it is unacceptable, wrong and illogical for India to let Jammu and Kashmir go. Your news agencies are obviously twisting the fact to sensationalize it, because that's how they can get higher viewship/readership. And politicians will once again use it to feed even more hatred and use it to their advantage. There is absolutely no plan to make Sindh a part of India. Your news agencies and politicians are lying to you. Open your eyes, and don't believe everything you see on the news blindly. BTW, you guys have been trying to make Jammu and Kashmir a part of Pakistan for half a century now. And you have been occupying a large portion of it too. What do you suggest we should feel? But hatred is not the answer. Being educated, you are expected to use your brains, think coherently, refuse the drivel fed by media and politicians and see things for what they are. If guys like you cannot do it, how can other not so fortunate like you be expected to do it?
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!

Anonymous

Chris Losinger wrote: 45% of people polled believe that. see reply above. Hmmmm, you would think that I would have met at least a few of them... Chris Losinger wrote: maybe he has never explicitly said "Saddam did it." but, he's been saying things along the lines of: I think you are completely missing the point he is clearly trying to make. He is saying that 9/11 demonstrates that the US must take preemptive actions against potentials threats from terrorist groups and rouge states. If we had taken serious preemptive actions against bin Ladin, 9/11 would have never happened. If we don't take serious preemptive actions against Saddam Hussien now, another 9/11 is far more likely. We simply cannot set here as a huge target and let ourselves be attacked before we decide to act. That is probably a prudent position to take. Anyone in the oval office would have done something similar. Frankly, I don't like the strategy and politics Bush is using, I think it is sadly typical of this generation of politicians. But considering the amount of opposition he gets for even the most modest use of our power, I think his behaivor is somewhat understandable.

David Wulff

Sounds good - I can remmeber the French and German breakfast days at high school (you turn up to your language lesson and find a regional feast - and I do mean a feast - laid out before you). Whilst the Frnech make the best bread products, the Germans sure now how to eat meat! Yummy! :)

David Wulff

"I feel inclined to blow my mind, Get hung up feeding ducks with a bun. They all come out to groove about; Be nicer than fun in the sun." - Itchycoo Park (Small Faces)

Imran Farooqui

Rohit Sinha wrote: it is unacceptable, wrong and illogical for India to let Jammu and Kashmir go. No, it is not the part of India. It is a disputed territory as declared by the United Nations (and not Pak media). It can only become part of India if India is ready to impose UN resolution (which Pakistan already agreed) OR In order to shut the mouth of Pakistan, India can again ask UN to cancel its old resolution. Rohit Sinha wrote: Your news agencies and politicians are lying to you. I heard the news about LK Advani on Zee News. Rohit Sinha wrote: And you have been occupying a large portion of it too. The part under Pakistan control is independent, it has its own constitution, own budget, own currency and own passport. Yes its defence is under Pakistan control which is also declared in UN resolution, when LOC was established that both governments are responsible for the security of disputed territory. Rohit Sinha wrote: And you have been occupying a large portion of it too. Shhhhhhhhhh. no complains here, go to UN.

Rohit Sinha

Aw, comeon Imran! :) Imran Farooqui wrote: No, it is not the part of India. It is a disputed territory as declared by the United Nations (and not Pak media). It has always been a part of India. Pakistan was the one who started the dispute, remember? The Kashmiris/Indians didn't. The UN resolution doesn't say that the land is "disputed". It says that the people have the right to self determination, and their wishes should be determined in a fair and free-from-fear environment (my own words, not the UN's). As far as I remember, the environment in Jammu and Kashmir has never been peaceful and never been conducive to a free and fair referendum, because of the terrorists and militants. And besides that, the people there have already voted and brought an Indian party to run the government, despite threats to not do so from the terrorists/militants. How is that for who wants to go where? The UN resolution is old and outdated IMO and I think our politicians are trying to do something about it. Imran Farooqui wrote: I heard the news about LK Advani on Zee News. Even I saw it on Zee News. Obviously, either you didn't listen to it carefully, or you have now forgotten the details. Here is the link from the zeenews website. Clickety[^] From the article: "Let it be understood that if the right to self determination is to be applied to various countries, including Pakistan, Sindh will not be part of Pakistan," he said. As you can see if you read the article, he was merely saying that if self determination means a separate nation on the grounds of ethnic and cultural diversity, then there are other nations who have to be broken down in parts. Never did he say that India will make Sindh a part of its own, as the poster above claimed. :| How far can you go twisting facts? Imran Farooqui wrote: Shhhhhhhhhh. no complains here, go to UN. Tell that to the poster above. :) I am the one who wants to bring friendship and a cordial relationship between the two countries. But it seems not everyone wants it. :)
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

Chris Losinger

Anonymous wrote: If we had taken serious preemptive actions against bin Ladin, 9/11 would have never happened. hindsight is great, isn't it? Anonymous wrote: If we don't take serious preemptive actions against Saddam Hussien now, another 9/11 is far more likely. your crystal ball must be much better than mine. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Imran Farooqui

Rohit Sinha wrote: I am the one who wants to bring friendship and a cordial relationship between the two countries May be you don't know (because you don't watch Pakistan channels) but many songs of your recent films are cheated from Pakistan. (3 in Kabhi khushi kabhi gham were based on the same tone). We also cheat yours (and make them even worse, atleast you people improve ours :-D). Had we worked together in field of Arts and culture how successful we would have been. Just imagine a cricket team in which there is Sachin and Akram are together. AAh its just a dream. What you say ?? Rohit Sinha wrote: As you can see if you read the article, he was merely saying that if self determination means a separate nation on the grounds of ethnic and cultural diversity, then there are other nations who have to be broken down in parts. Pakistan was itself formed on religious grounds as stated in Government of India act June 1947, that muslim "majority" areas of north west and north east are to be made independent states. "ALL" provinces where muslims are in majority voted for Pakistan in 99% votes. But not Kashmir though in principle it is majority of muslim area in north west. Dude, India is a rising economy, and as a big market, a natural ally of the West. West also wants India to stand as a wall in front of China, and West also knows that this "Wall" can potentially become a "hill" against their own interests. So they also created a "wall" in front of India name you know well. (Not my words.. these are the words of the president of BJP visited Islamabad perhaps last month) Rohit Sinha wrote: Pakistan was the one who started the dispute, remember? The Kashmiris/Indians didn't. No, India had involved UN in the matter plus the statements of Mr.Nehru related to Kashmir complicated the situation. Rohit Sinha wrote: the people there have already voted and brought an Indian party to run the government, As such, UN resolution also not said that AJK is part of India and Pakistan occupied it and as such they can also selected their own government. No state election can be a substitute of plabescite. Mr .LK Advani is not a well wisher of Pakistan. He was a big criminal before 1947 even the British Police station at Hyderabad (Pak) filed a case against him related to murders. The case files are still present there. ??? If me, hmm no, we promised at Simla that we solve the iss

Rohit Sinha

Imran Farooqui wrote: Had we worked together in field of Arts and culture how successful we would have been. Just imagine a cricket team in which there is Sachin and Akram are together. AAh its just a dream. What you say ?? My thoughts, exactly. :-D I have often dreamed of the ideal team, where the players of both the countries come together and form the worlds best team. And we (India Pakistan combined) have got the best minds on the planet IMO, very good music and culture, food ( :-D ), and everything else. Only if all this could come together. :rose: Boy, what greatness we could have achieved, what fun we could have had. But instead we are engaged in religious turmoils and land disputes. :( Imran Farooqui wrote: No, India had involved UN in the matter plus the statements of Mr.Nehru related to Kashmir complicated the situation. Yes, you are right. Leave it to the politicians to mess up every situation. They didn't know how to handle the situation then, and they don't know how to handle it now. Imran Farooqui wrote: Mr .LK Advani is not a well wisher of Pakistan. He was a big criminal before 1947 even the British Police station at Hyderabad (Pak) filed a case against him related to murders. The case files are still present there. What he was or is as a person does not and should not have any bearing on this issue. And maybe, just maybe, because I don't know enough about this matter, the "murders" were of the freedom fight type, like those of Bhagat Singh and all. Imran Farooqui wrote: If you say that UN resolution is old and not to be implemented then i say that Simla agreement is old and lets break it. :) I'm not saying we should break the UN resolution or the Simla agreement. See, if we stick to the Simla agreement, which came after the UN resolution, we can forget about the UN resolution. That is why I said it's old and outdated. Because the two countries agreed to solve it bilaterally, and keep the UN and everyone else out of it. But so far neither of the two countries has shown any positive interest in this direction. Both are adamant on their stand. Pakistan on the one hand keeps saying the issue should be solved peacefully, which is a very good thing, but then it also supports terrorism in India actively. India in its turn refuses to talk to Pakistan until this terrorism thing is solved. This attitude is not going to take any of us anywhere. Pakistan has to stop ter

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: Unfortunately, when you are dealing with terrorism it seems awfully difficult to deal with it successfully without getting your hand dirty Doing this is repeating the same mistake French Army did in Algeria, radicalizing a conflict and changing terrorists in martyrs.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Mike Gaskey wrote: Favor, no doubt at all. So, you're favorizing the use of the Force over the Law and the Right, and rejecting the Human Rights. What difference have you left with a Fascist ? Mike Gaskey wrote: That is a silly question, but you knew that Sorry, I don't. I don't think asking question about the use of torture is innocent, more a try to influence the US policy by pretending US citizens agree with such means. Mike Gaskey wrote: Now you'll have to explain that one. Just how does a news reporting organization become "evil" - or is it because they allow news that hasn't been filtered through a leftist lens Nope, this organization is evil not because of the ideas it's promoting, but because of the means it use. Read the Sun and the New York Post, and see how a disgusting campaign may be launched, using hatred, xenophobiac arguments and racist clichés to make its point. Murdoch's empire is dropping tons of shit on its opponents, using the same tactics used by totalitarian regims through the world. it has no honor and can't be respected.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

I don't know if you have been reading the papers lately, but Al Quada is already a radical group. If we were dicussing dealing with rational people I would agree with you, but in this case, these people have already made the decision how they feel about us, they hate our guts and want to kill us. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: I don't know if you have been reading the papers lately <sarcasm>No, I live in a cave without any contact with the rest of the world since 1982 </sarcasm> ;P Doug Goulden wrote: If we were dicussing dealing with rational people I would agree with you, but in this case, these people have already made the decision how they feel about us, they hate our guts and want to kill us. If you use the same means you loose also all moral authority to fight them back, and lower yourself at the same level, loosing also all the values you may believe and defend as the Right and the Law.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: If you use the same means you loose also all moral authority to fight them back, and lower yourself at the same level, loosing also all the values you may believe and defend as the Right and the Law The rule of law..... you have to get someone to agree to live by those rules before you can use them as a tool. Al Quada and groups like them could care less about rules, laws, and resolutions. Until they are made to see that the only result they will get is a swift and effective response, they won't consider any other option. KaЯl wrote: No, I live in a cave without any contact with the rest of the world since 1982 Is that why French people use so much perfume?:omg: Sorry had to do it..... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: you have to get someone to agree to live by those rules before you can use them as a tool That's why there are (still) international organizations. If we abandon what we believe in, the terrorists win. Doug Goulden wrote: Until they are made to see that the only result they will get is a swift and effective response, they won't consider any other option. You are applying your logic to the terrorists, believing they will act following it. But IMHO they don't use the same logic we do, if they even use one. Doug Goulden wrote: Is that why French people use so much perfume? <joking> I never use perfume, that attracts sissys ;P </joking>

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: You are applying your logic to the terrorists, believing they will act following it. But IMHO they don't use the same logic we do, if they even use one. I'm applying my logic thinking that the terrorists should see 2 options. Either act within normal standards of law and behavior, or be attacked and destroyed. If they can be made to see that there is an attractive solution and the other solution will be applied, I think it removes a lot of the doubt from their minds what to do. I would suspect that a lot of the people involved in these organizations lack the strength of their convictions. The problem either with this or with Iraq is there has to be a credible threat to how these type of people what is going to happen. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?