Double standards of Bush adminstration

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:55 pm

BTS wrote: Ooops sorry....Is this better?......

I wish it were shorter too, but there were just too many abuses to include.

Can I ask..........Are you a ..........No Let me guess.......... You are in the majority. A Hindu?

Right?

Yes BTS, I am a Hindu but what it has got to do with majority or minority?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 8:01 pm

Kensloft,

It is nice to know that this story is your favourite. There are many such stories in Hindu religious books. But people do not seem to learn from them. Too much love with self is coming in the way to love other human beings.

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:29 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Kensloft,

It is nice to know that this story is your favourite. There are many such stories in Hindu religious books. But people do not seem to learn from them. Too much love with self is coming in the way to love other human beings.
Now, if you could only look into yourself and see who I was thinking about when I wrote it then you may not lose all of your followers.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 10:41 pm

kensloft wrote: Now, if you could only look into yourself and see who I was thinking about when I wrote it then you may not lose all of your followers.

Oh dear did you have me in your mind when you wrote that message narrating the story? Please don't give me so much importance. I am an ordinary person and not here to make followers.

I seem to have hurt your feelings when I talked of double standards being adopted by US administration. If yes, then I offer my sincere apologies for I did not raise this issue to hurt you and others. The main reason of raising this issue was to convey my hurt on the action taken by US administration as I feel that such unilateral action is not expected of a friend country. A friendship can be everlasting only when it works for the mutual benefit of both the friends and both have respect for each other's view points and concerns and do not behave in such extreme manner.

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Oh dear did you have me in your mind when you wrote that message narrating the story? Please don't give me so much importance. I am an ordinary person and not here to make followers.

I seem to have hurt your feelings when I talked of double standards being adopted by US administration. If yes, then I offer my sincere apologies for I did not raise this issue to hurt you and others. The main reason of raising this issue was to convey my hurt on the action taken by US administration as I feel that such unilateral action is not expected of a friend country. A friendship can be everlasting only when it works for the mutual benefit of both the friends and both have respect for each other's view points and concerns and do not behave in such extreme manner.
You have not hurt my feelings. I do not see you as that equanimous entity as you purport yourself to be. You seem to live in a world that is extensively leaning towards the superiority of the Indian culture over all others.

You are what you speak. To come to this forum and allege that you are pro people leaves much to be desired when one goes to your site and realizes that you are not who you claim to be.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:40 am

kensloft wrote: You have not hurt my feelings. I do not see you as that equanimous entity as you purport yourself to be. You seem to live in a world that is extensively leaning towards the superiority of the Indian culture over all others.

You are what you speak. To come to this forum and allege that you are pro people leaves much to be desired when one goes to your site and realizes that you are not who you claim to be.

I am happy to note that I have not hurt your feelings. As I have told you that I am an ordinary person and never claim to to be an equanimous entity. I however am proud of my culture but that does not mean that I consider other cultures inferior to my culture. That is not a part of my culture. Please do not read what is not there.

You are right that people are what they speak. I try to be pro-people. May be there are gaps between what I say and what I practice. But then no body is perfect. I have started a discussion forum on my Website. That will be another learning experience for me as it has been on this forum. I have read your feedback sent to me from my Website. There again you are reading something which is not there. Indian people want to relate to the world in a manner which is respectfull for everybody. We do not consider others superior or inferior. May be it is not liked by others but that is our way.

Post by **kensloft** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 1:20 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: I am happy to note that I have not hurt your feelings. As I have told you that I am an ordinary person and never claim to to be an equanimous entity. I however am proud of my culture but that does not mean that I consider other cultures inferior to my culture. That is not a part of my culture. Please do not read what is not there.

You are right that people are what they speak. I try to be pro-people. May be there are gaps between what I say and what I practice. But then no body is perfect. I have started a discussion forum on my Website. That will be another learning experience for me as it has been on this forum. I have read your feedback sent to me from my Website. There again you are reading something which is not there. Indian people want to relate to the world in a manner which is respectfull for everybody. We do not consider others superior or inferior. May be it is not liked by others but that is our way.
As you may or may not know there are sizable populations of East Indians in Canada. I know many and have worked with many. They are hardworking as are Canadians but they have come to Canada to have better lives. They are escaping the restrictions that were in their lives in their native land, India, and the biggest hurdle that they spoke of were the class restrictions that dominate the lives of many.

The untouchables are one of the particular castes that they are unhappy with in their land and though many will not talk about it there are many that will say, pointedly, that they are not being as liberated as quickly as they should be.

India is known to hide a lot of its sins (atom bombs)from the world because they do not want the world to know that they're still living in the fantasy that allowed them to deceive many of their countrymen into believing that things were the way they were because god ruled that it was so.

To many people they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. In the West, if you are going to walk the walk you had better be able to talk the talk. Not being able to do both means that you are insincere and the net worth of whatever you claim to be doing amounts to nil, zero, zilch. To try and pander to the feelings of others with what is seen as insincerity will only make matters worse.

Mahatma Ghandi is long dead and to aspire to his aims and ambitions is all well and good but are nothing if you only pay lip service to what he has tried to teach the world.

Before you start castigating the countries that are responsible for helping you to attain what democracy you now live under don't make assertions that you can't back up with facts. We have had a free press for many years and although it isn't perfect it is the best that the world has to offer.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:06 am

BUSHWHACKED again:D

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:17 am

kensloft wrote: As you may or may not know there are sizable populations of East Indians in Canada. I know many and have worked with many. They are hardworking as are Canadians but they have come to Canada to have better lives. They are escaping the restrictions that were in their lives in their native land, India, and the biggest hurdle that they spoke of were the class restrictions that dominate the lives of many.

The untouchables are one of the particular castes that they are unhappy with in their land and though many will not talk about it there are many that will say, pointedly, that they are not being as liberated as quickly as they should be.

India is known to hide a lot of its sins (atom bombs)from the world because they do not want the world to know that they're still living in the fantasy that allowed them to deceive many of their countrymen into believing that things were the way they were because god ruled that it was so.

To many people they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. In the West, if you are going to walk the walk you had better be able to talk the talk. Not being able to do both means that you are insincere and the net worth of whatever you claim to be doing amounts to nil, zero, zilch. To try and pander to the feelings of others with what is seen as insincerity will only make matters worse.

Mahatma Ghandi is long dead and to aspire to his aims and ambitions is all well and good but are nothing if you only pay lip service to what he has tried to teach the world.

Before you start castigating the countries that are responsible for helping you to attain what democracy you now live under don't make assertions that you can't back up with facts. We have had a free press for many years and although it isn't perfect it is the best that the world has to offer.

You keep on harping on issues which have no concern with US. Now you have come to a level of social issues. What is wrong with you? I am trying to keep the discussion on such issues which have a bearing on other countries but you keep on coming back to issues which are not having any impact on US. You even go to the level of telling me that it is US that has helped us to attain the democracy. But the fact is that US unnecessarily interferes in the internal matters of other countries and it is US which has created problems all over the world.

US own documents have shown that it was Washington which took Iran down nuclear road. The Iran uranium enrichment programme, the shutdown of which US now demands, was recommended by former US President Gerald Ford's top officials, including his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, current Vice-president Richard Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield. US administration also suggested joint Pakistan-Iranian re-processing plant. Why don't you read these documents, they make an interesting reading of double standards of a country which boasts of teaching democracy to others.

Is it not a case of double standards that at one time US tells India and Pakistan to normalize relations and the next moment starts finalizing a deal of selling F-16s to Pakistan creating hurdles in CBMs being pushed by both countries. To keep its arms producing factories continue making profits US starts another arms race in this region. And to top all this US Defence Secretary tells that F-16s are being given to Pakistan to fight terrorists. Since when terrorists are being dealt with by using F-16 fighters? Pakistan has always used these weapons against India. What sort of helping-democracy politics is this?

So Mr. Kensloft it is time for US to come down to earth from the high pedastal of being a protector of democracy and world peace and start behaving as another country of this world.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:19 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Oh dear did you have me in your mind when you wrote that message narrating the story? Please don't give me so much importance. I am an ordinary person and not here to make followers.

I seem to have hurt your feelings when I talked of double standards being adopted by US administration. If yes, then I offer my sincere apologies for I did not raise this issue to hurt you and others. The main reason of raising this issue was to convey my hurt on the action taken by US administration as I feel that such unilateral action is not expected of a friend country. A friendship can be everlasting only when it works for the mutual benefit of both the friends and both have respect for each other's view points and concerns and do not behave in such extreme manner.

So,

The the "double standard" you keep referring to, is that we went into Iraq to remove a "Evil Dictator" and then refuse to honor a passport for a guy that has all kinds of human rights atrocities going on in his region (state).

Is that what you are saying?

Just want to be clear here...........

Post by **kensloft** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:22 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: You keep on harping on issues which have no concern with US. Now you have come to a level of social issues. What is wrong with you? I am trying to keep the discussion on such issues which have a bearing on other countries but you keep on coming back to issues which are not having any impact on US. You even go to the level of telling me that it is US that has helped us to attain the democracy. But the fact is that US unnecessarily interferes in the internal matters of other countries and it is US which has created problems all over the world.

US own documents have shown that it was Washington which took Iran down nuclear road. The Iran uranium enrichment programme, the shutdown of which US now demands, was recommended by former US President Gerald Ford's top officials, including his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, current Vice-president Richard Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield. US administration also suggested joint Pakistan-Iranian re-processing plant. Why don't you read these documents, they make an interesting reading of double standards of a country which boasts of teaching democracy to others.

Is it not a case of double standards that at one time US tells India and Pakistan to normalize relations and the next moment starts finalizing a deal of selling F-16s to Pakistan creating hurdles in CBMs being pushed by both countries. To keep its arms producing factories continue making profits US starts another arms race in this region. And to top all this US Defence Secretary tells that F-16s are being given to Pakistan to fight terrorists. Since when terrorists are being dealt with by using F-16 fighters? Pakistan has always used these weapons against India. What sort of helping-democracy politics is this?

So Mr. Kensloft it is time for US to come down to earth from the high pedastal of being a protector of democracy and world peace and start behaving as another country of this world.
According to your signature we should spread love and not hate. The first thing that you do is malign America as having a double standard. Show me a country that doesn't have a double standard and I will ask you which planet do they live on?

America has been a free trading nation since its inception. It has created its wealth by trading money or goods for these resources. The people they did business with are the various countries of the world that were led by various persuasions of governments being led by various persusions of leaders that were generally considered, by civilized governments, to be one or two steps above the devil and his associates. America could have gone in and done the right thing and replaced the government of the day through force of arms but then they would be considered to be imperialists.

If there is a double standard it is because the people that they were doing business with kept changing. From despot to a variation of despot. The rule of law was the rule of the jungle. Only the strong survived, ruled and collected the cheques. All America could do was ask who the cheques should be made out to. They were there for the resources. If the warring factions wanted to kill each other then that was not America's business. Cold, cruel but reality nonetheless.

To allege that America would judge a country by its seemingly, popularly supported government would be anathema to Americans because they know from experience that the devil hides in amongst the good people of the world. In India's particular case it is this governor that allowed for there to be a virtual genocidal assault against Indian citizens. You have come to this man's defense because he is Indian and therefore there must be some misunderstanding because no Indian citizen would allow this to happen to another Indian citizen.

You are wrong and that is all there is to it. America does care about who comes into the country based on who they are and not the government that they represent which, incidentally, by your own words on your own site are filled with corrupt individuals that you don't even know.

In the Western concept of civilized behaviour there is the saying that has to do with throwing stones. It is based primarily on the throwing of stones. In Jesus' times he was confronted by a crowd that asked him what to do with an adultress that was about to be stoned to death for her promiscuity. Christ's response was simple and He said that the person that is without sin should throw the first stone. She lived and fled with her life.

Along the more secular aspect of life and living evloved the saying of people that lived in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, meaning that to malign or belittle others for being the same that you are would result in the edifice that you lived in being broken to smithereens because of the hypocrisy of your alleged perfection. Everyone lives in a glass home because everybody can see who you are. To cast aspersions upon others is to throw stones from inside your home thereby shattering the home that you live in and letting everyone know that you are not who you claim to be. Your illusion of perfectiion is then to seen for what it is... amere illusion of superiority.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:00 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: US own documents have shown that it was Washington which took Iran down nuclear road. The Iran uranium enrichment programme, the shutdown of which US now demands, was recommended by former US President Gerald Ford's top officials, including his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, current Vice-president Richard Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield. US administration also suggested joint Pakistan-Iranian re-processing plant. Why don't you read these documents, they make an interesting reading of double standards of a country which boasts of teaching democracy to others.
politics makes strange bedfellows. countries all over the planet, and throughout history, have made alliances that later turned sour, or worse turned against them. regimes change. people change. what you're talking about took place 30 years ago! the government of iran was overthrown by fundamentalist islamic revolutionaries in 1979. perhaps a more incisive grasp of history might be called for, suresh, before you paint EVERYTHING with the broad brush of 'US double standard'.

Is it not a case of double standards that at one time US tells India and Pakistan to normalize relations and the next moment starts finalizing a deal of selling F-16s to Pakistan creating hurdles in CBMs being pushed by both countries. To keep its arms producing factories continue making profits US starts another arms race in this region. And to top all this US Defence Secretary tells that F-16s are being given to Pakistan to fight terrorists. Since when terrorists are being dealt with by using F-16 fighters? Pakistan has always used these weapons against India. What sort of helping-democracy politics is this?
interestingly, India has been offered the same F-16's, and is delighted with the opportunity. What will india use those F-16's for? if india buys them, won't india be feeding the profits of the arms merchants? so pakistan is hostile to india, but india is wholey benevolent to pakistan?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:48 pm

kensloft wrote: According to your signature we should spread love and not hate. The first thing that you do is malign America as having a double standard. Show me a country that doesn't have a double standard and I will ask you which planet do they live on?

Pointing out certain discrepency in behaviour or gap between words and practice is not maligning. It is also not spreading hate. You have been pointing out certain things which you consider gaps betweem my words and practice. Are you maligning me or spreading hate for me? There may be countries which adopt double standards, but does it justify the double standards being adopted by US administration?

America has been a free trading nation since its inception. It has created its wealth by trading money or goods for these resources. The people they did business with are the various countries of the world that were led by various persuasions of governments being led by various persusions of leaders that were generally considered, by civilized governments, to be one or two steps above the devil and his associates. America could have gone in and done the right thing and replaced the government of the day through force of arms but then they would be considered to be imperialists.

If there is a double standard it is because the people that they were doing business with kept changing. From despot to a variation of despot. The rule of law was the rule of the jungle. Only the strong survived, ruled and collected the cheques. All America could do was ask who the cheques should be made out to. They were there for the resources. If the warring factions wanted to kill each other then that was not America's business. Cold, cruel but reality nonetheless.

To allege that America would judge a country by its seemingly, popularly supported government would be anathema to Americans because they know from experience that the devil hides in amongst the good people of the world. In India's particular case it is this governor that allowed for there to be a virtual genocidal assault against Indian citizens. You have come to this man's defense because he is Indian and therefore there must be some misunderstanding because no Indian citizen would allow this to happen to another Indian citizen.

You are wrong and that is all there is to it. America does care about who comes into the country based on who they are and not the government that they represent which, incidentally, by your own words on your own site are filled with corrupt individuals that you don't even know.

In the Western concept of civilized behaviour there is the saying that has to do with throwing stones. It is based primarily on the throwing of stones. In Jesus' times he was confronted by a crowd that asked him what to do with an adultress that was about to be stoned to death for her promiscuity. Christ's response was simple and He said that the person that is without sin should throw the first stone. She lived and fled with her life.

Along the more secular aspect of life and living evloved the saying of people that lived in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, meaning that to malign or belittle others for being the same that you are would result in the edifice that you lived in being broken to smithereens because of the hypocrisy of your alleged perfection. Everyone lives in a glass home because everybody can see who you are. To cast aspersions upon others is to throw stones from inside your home thereby shattering the home that you live in and letting everyone know that you are not who you claim to be. Your illusion of perfectiion is then to seen for what it is... amere illusion of superiority.

You have rightly pointed out an integral part of US foreign policy in saying that America could have gone in and done the right thing and replaced the government of the day through force of arms. This is what America has done in case of Afghamistan and Iraq. US has its own definitions, meanings, and criteria for judging others. Anybody is a friend as long as he toes the line and the momemt he starts disagreeing he turnes a devil and should be eliminated. US accused them of crimes, itself became the judge, pronounced them guilty, attacked them, replaced the government. And what does it matter if in the process thousands of innocent people were killed and a large part of resources and infrasturuture was destroyed.

It is natural that an Indian would come to the defense of another Indian. This is what you and some other members are doing. But in this case the accuser has no credentials to accuse him. The crime he is being accused of has not been proved and further the crime was not committed against the accuser. The accuser has insulted this Indian and in the process many more Indians like me and my country.

Quoting Jesus, but here again as per double standards His words are applicable only to Indians and not Americans.

You accuse me of a mere illusion of superiority but conveniently fail to apply your own criteria to yourself where the entire policy and behaviour of US is a result of this illusion of superiority, and has resulted in killings of many innocent human beings the world over.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:34 pm

anastrophe wrote: politics makes strange bedfellows. countries all over the planet, and throughout history, have made alliances that later turned sour, or worse turned against them. regimes change. people change. what you're talking about took place 30 years ago! the government of iran was overthrown by fundamentalist islamic revolutionaries in 1979. perhaps a more incisive grasp of history might be called for, suresh, before you paint EVERYTHING with the broad brush of 'US double standard'.

interestingly, India has been offered the same F-16's, and is delighted with the opportunity. What will india use those F-16's for? if india buys them, won't india be feeding the profits of the arms merchants? so pakistan is hostile to india, but india is wholey benevolent to pakistan?

Some people have not changed. They were in Ford's administration when they took those decisions and now they are in Bush administration. History can not change facts. If US committed a mistake at that time by nuclear arming Iran, it has committed another mistake in attacking Iraq. Many innocent lives have been lost by this mistake and if Iran is attacked then many more lives will be lost by that 30 years old mistake.

India is not delighted with the offer of F-18s. Fighter planes can only kill. I can not support any government which spends money on war material rather than spending it to fulfill peoples' needs. I don't think that majority of people from India and Pakistan are hostile to each other. They want peace but such actions of their and other governments create problems.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:43 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Fighter planes can only kill. I can not support any government which spends money on war material rather than spending it to fulfill peoples' needs.
this does not mesh with what you said previously about india's nuclear weapons. nuclear weapons can only kill. therefore, you cannot support your own government, even though you stated quite emphatically that if india says they are for peaceful purposes, then it is so.

you are revealing your own definitions, which are, quite distinctly, double standards.

you say india should be willing to destroy its nuclear weapons only if the US brings its arsenal down to the same level. this is not consistent. nuclear weapons can only kill. india is responsible for its own destiny. you must support destruction of india's weapons now. more nuclear weapons, no matter whose hands they are in, does not promote peace. we will pursue our own path towards eliminating nuclear weapons. india has a much smaller arsenal. disarming now is much easier, and spreads peace. it should not be dependent upon our disarmament, unless you are not truly committed to peace. nuclear weapons, except within the confines of mutually-assured destruction, are offensive weapons, not defensive.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:43 pm

BTS wrote: So,

The the "double standard" you keep referring to, is that we went into Iraq to remove a "Evil Dictator" and then refuse to honor a passport for a guy that has all kinds of human rights atrocities going on in his region (state).

Is that what you are saying?

Just want to be clear here...........

No BTS you are not clear. You can not justify killings of thousands of innocent human beings and destruction of huge resources and infrasturcture by calling then Iraq President a evil dictator. There are people who feel that Bush is more evil than Saddaam. If you do not feel for people of Iraq who were killed then at least feel for those Americans who lost their lives in this senseless attack on Iraq.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:51 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: No BTS you are not clear. You can not justify killings of thousands of innocent human beings and destruction of huge resources and infrasturcture by calling then Iraq President a evil dictator. There are people who feel that Bush is more evil than Saddaam. If you do not feel for people of Iraq who were killed then at least feel for those Americans who lost their lives in this senseless attack on Iraq.
senseless? i hear that repeatedly. i hear no acknowledgement of the fact that most iraqi's are glad we got rid of saddam, are glad we are there, are glad they have an opportunity for a democratically elected political system, and don't want us to leave prematurely simply because other nations have a parti pris about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the united states does. france's refusal to support the US in the war had nothing to do with honor, or wanting peace, it had to do with the fact that france made a lot of money from arms sales to iraq, and has ALWAYS felt that iraq was 'theirs', just as they feel the same about lebanon...or about french indochina for that matter.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:55 pm

anastrophe wrote: this does not mesh with what you said previously about india's nuclear weapons. nuclear weapons can only kill. therefore, you cannot support your own government, even though you stated quite emphatically that if india says they are for peaceful purposes, then it is so.

you are revealing your own definitions, which are, quite distinctly, double standards.

It is again you read me wrong. You people are busy in making comments relating to me and running away from the main issue. I am not in favour of any weapon which kills and destroys hard built resources and infrastructure. I support scientific development for the benefit of mankind and not for destroying each other. Business and trade in arms is bad. I feel that there are many other ways to make a living then producing and selling arms. Then I velieve in ehtics of business. Economics comes later and certainly not at the cost of ethics.

you say india should be willing to destroy its nuclear weapons only if the US brings its arsenal down to the same level. this is not consistent. nuclear weapons can only kill. india is responsible for its own destiny. you must support destruction of india's weapons now. more nuclear weapons, no matter whose hands they are in, does not promote peace. we will pursue our own path towards eliminating nuclear weapons. india has a much smaller arsenal. disarming now is much easier, and spreads peace. it should not be dependent upon our disarmament, unless you are not truly committed to peace. nuclear weapons, except within the confines of mutually-assured destruction, are offensive weapons, not defensive.

India is for total disarmamnent by every country of the world and it should be done on an equal footing. There should be no discrimination. US can not sit as a judge on this matter. It has to stand in the line with other countries.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:03 pm

anastrophe wrote: senseless? i hear that repeatedly. i hear no acknowledgement of the fact that most iraqi's are glad we got rid of saddam, are glad we are there, are glad they have an opportunity for a democratically elected political system, and don't want us to leave prematurely simply because other nations have a parti pris about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the united states does. france's refusal to support the US in the war had nothing to do with honor, or wanting peace, it had to do with the fact that france made a lot of money from arms sales to iraq, and has ALWAYS felt that iraq was 'theirs', just as they feel the same about lebanon...or about french indochina for that matter.

"Evil Dictator' and "Many Iraqis are glad that US got rid of Saddaam" , till when you will continue using such silly excuses. It defeats all logic that you don't feel sad even for the families of those Americans who were killed in the war and are being killed even now.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:22 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: "Evil Dictator' and "Many Iraqis are glad that US got rid of Saddaam" , till when you will continue using such silly excuses. It defeats all logic that you don't feel sad even for the families of those Americans who were killed in the war and are being killed even now.
attack the argument, not the person making the argument. i'm rapidly losing what respect i had for you suresh. you are either unwilling, or incapable of responding to these matters dispassionately.

now then. what i wrote above, after the first sentence, was an example of precisely what the first sentence spoke to.

first off, 'logic' and 'sadness' are mutually exclusive entities. secondly, i fail to see where i have expressed my feelings one way or the other regarding the families of the amercians who have been killed in the war. you seem to assume that because i argue in favor of what has been accomplished in iraq, therefore i have no feelings, no sadness, for the families that have lost loved ones in the war - whether american or iraqi. that is irrational, and is simply not supported by what i have written.

dismissing as 'silly excuses' does not refute facts. it is not a logical rebuttal. please try again. it would appear that you are pathologically opposed to the iraq war and aftermath.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:29 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: It is again you read me wrong. You people are busy in making comments relating to me and running away from the main issue.
you may percieve that to be the case, but it is not in fact the case. we are, i believe, trying to get you to realize that, for better or worse, india has double standards too.

I am not in favour of any weapon which kills and destroys hard built resources and infrastructure. I support scientific development for the benefit of mankind and not for destroying each other. Business and trade in arms is bad. I feel that there are many other ways to make a living then producing and selling arms. Then I velieve in ehtics of business. Economics comes later and certainly not at the cost of ethics.
sigh. let me repeat exactly what you wrote before:

India does not have any double standard on nuclear weapons. It has gone to acquire nuclear capability and if it says that it is for peaceful purposes it is correct. There may also be other reasons but again these nuclear weapons are the logical result of the situation created by super powers in this region.

"and if it says that it is for peaceful purposes it is correct."?? what does that mean? are you, or are you not, opposed to india's having nuclear weapons? if you are not opposed, then how does it mesh with your statement above:

I am not in favour of any weapon which kills and destroys hard built resources and infrastructure.

nuclear weapons kill, and destroy hard built resources and infrastructure. only in the case of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - are they considered a 'defensive' weapon.

India is for total disarmamnent by every country of the world and it should be done on an equal footing. There should be no discrimination. US can not sit as a judge on this matter. It has to stand in the line with other countries.
as i pointed out, we have been reducing our nuclear arsenal for a long time. india can begin doing the same. chances are, you'll disarm before we do. would that not be a good thing, rather than a bad thing, since india would have gotten rid of weapons that have only offensive, rather than defensive, uses?

Post by **kensloft** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:56 pm

Suresh

Wake up.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:06 am

kensloft wrote: Suresh

Wake up.

I am an early riser.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:24 am

panastrohe wrote: attack the argument, not the person making the argument. i'm rapidly losing what respect i had for you suresh. you are either unwilling, or incapable of responding to these matters dispassionately.

Perhaps it was misplaced respect you and some other FG members had for me.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:32 am

anastrophe wrote: you may percieve that to be the case, but it is not in fact the case. we are, i believe, trying to get you to realize that, for better or worse, india has double standards too.

But what that realization will achieve? Will it prove that US does not have double standards?

sigh. let me repeat exactly what you wrote before:

India does not have any double standard on nuclear weapons. It has gone to acquire nuclear capability and if it says that it is for peaceful purposes it is correct. There may also be other reasons but again these nuclear weapons are the logical result of the situation created by super powers in this region.

"and if it says that it is for peaceful purposes it is correct."?? what does that mean? are you, or are you not, opposed to india's having nuclear weapons? if you are not opposed, then how does it mesh with your statement above:

I am not in favour of any weapon which kills and destroys hard built resources and infrastructure.

nuclear weapons kill, and destroy hard built resources and infrastructure. only in the case of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - are they considered a 'defensive' weapon.

as i pointed out, we have been reducing our nuclear arsenal for a long time. india can begin doing the same. chances are, you'll disarm before we do. would that not be a good thing, rather than a bad thing, since india would have gotten rid of weapons that have only offensive, rather than defensive, uses?

I have already clarified this point. In my opinion total disarmament will start only from an equal footing - no discrimination, no big or small, no developed or developing country.

Post by **kensloft** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:11 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: But what that realization will achieve? Will it prove that US does not have double standards?

I have already clarified this point. In my opinion total disarmament will start only from an equal footing - no discrimination, no big or small, no developed or developing country.
Let me see if I get this right? You Indians will let us people disarm and when you get as many weapons as we have then you think that it is then that you will start to disarm?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:08 am

kensloft wrote: Let me see if I get this right? You Indians will let us people disarm and when you get as many weapons as we have then you think that it is then that you will start to disarm?

Let me first clarify one point. I am an Indian citizen and speak only on my behalf. I do not represent anybody else or any organization. There may be other Indians who may have different views on these matters. Indian government may also have different views on these matters. When I say that Indians believe in a certain matter then I refer to the opinion of those my fellow citizens with whom I have interacted and know their opinion.

Now I will like to now what is wrong in saying that total disarmament should start on equal footing. All countries should be treated as equal in cases of global concern. No body should think that this or that country is big and should get a preferential treatment in certain matters.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:12 am

You make some good points Suresh. I thinking your case over. Actually I really enjoy talking to you, especially for the fact that I've never actually spoken to an Indian (I live in the wilderness of America) and I greatly respect your people. I am personally distressed that our cooperation with pakistan has strained our relations with our long-time friends, your people.

If I'm following this thread right, You propose that nuclear weapons are bad, but disarmament can only happen when the two sides are equal. You resent the fact that the US has more nuclear weaponry than most of the planet, but we are engaged in trying to stop other countries from gaining them, and perhaps even asking your own country to begin disarming.

Is this the double standard of which you speak?

If so, I think I understand. Your country has some serious issues with your enemies, who have shown repeatedly that they can be unreasonable, attacking your civilian populations. You naturally feel you must defend yourself, and I can't blame you. If we had truckloads of armed Canadians coming across our border to kill whole trainloads of Americans, I'd feel just like you do.

Now...that said.... America's position on the planet as the sole remaining Hyperpower can't be ignored. You are very, very right in believing that nuclear weapons can destroy civilization. Less mature and responsible nations are actively engaged in obtaining them. ( North Korea is of great concern to myself, personally, as I see in that country a shadowy image of fascist Nazi Germany, and is there any doubt that Hitler would have used nuclear weapons if he had had them?)

Something must be done. It is simply not a good idea to have the entire planet armed to the teeth with weapons that can turn a nation into a sheet of glass overnight. But the questionis what to do? Should we engage in political debate and try to reason with these younger, rogue states? That has shown to be rather useless. Should we use economic pressure to make our point? Should we use force at all? Is that right to force other countries to do anything?

Now we've crossed into another territory altogether. This is reality, someone, some country must act. Somehow, force must be applied. The stakes are too great to just "let it ride and hope for the best".

Let's take this analogy to a closer-to-home level:

Let's say your young child got a hold of a weapon. Like all children, the child is volitile, emotional. He has enemies. He tells you that he needs the weapon, let's say a gun, to defend himself. What will you do?

It's obvious that this younger person does not have the judgement to own a weapon and may use it if provoked, perhaps even for something where the use of the weapon would not have been warranted. You would most likely take the weapon away, in this case and either teach him other means to defend himself to defend him personally. You are now the authority figure.

Believe me, I am not comparing your country to a child, India has a long, distinguished history going back far beyond my own country's, but certainly some countries, particularly small dictatorships, do exhibit immature reactions.

It is a fact that the U.S. has assumed the role of "world protector". We are the authority figure in our scenario. This may be due to the chance of History, or it may be a conscious decision, but the reason doesn't matter. We are the strongest and so the job falls to us. (I'm not even sure I particularly like this role either.)

Now...if we are to tell the other, less developed, more violent countries that then may not have nuclear weapons, surely you can see the fariness in telling all countries to follow suit. Picking favorites,( for example telling North Korea to disarm, but not telling Israel to disarm) would certainly be a bad idea, don't you think? So we need to enforce a disarmament world-wide, with our friends as well as enemies.

What do you think?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:41 am

Dear Jives, I thank you and also congratulate you for such a balanced analysis of the issue.

The other day I was seeing a movie in which hero tells his one-time professor that being strong and prosperous is the gift of God, and one should use this strength and resources to benefit the mankind. There is also a saying in India that strong and propsperous people should display humility and not arrogance. Branches of a tree loaded with fruits bent downwards and not upwards. America has been gifted by the God and I feel that its behaiour should be on these lines.

US puts lot of pressure on one country to change its ways, does not even hesitate to attack it. But before another country its behaviour is like dealing with a pampered and spoiled child meeting all his unreasonable demands even praising it to score a point over other countries. US wants to write world history but does not learn from its self-written history. First it armed Adghanistan against Russians, and after some time it attacked it. It spoiled Iran and now it is preparing to attack it. Arms given by US to such countries are lending in the hands of terrorists, and are being used against American people. History has many more similar situations. Even today US is not able to differentiate between friends and enemies. I am not able to undersstand the need of offering F-16s to Pakistan and F-18s to India. These two countries are trying to build up confidence for eah other. They do not need any arms. They need ncouragement for creating CBMs. The money the are going to spend on these arms should be used for improving the quality of life of its people. America, as a super power, as elder brother in global family, should put sense in the minds of these countries rather than starting a arms race in the reason. What can be the compulsions before Ameriaca for doimg this?

Post by **kensloft** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:52 am

Hey Jives,

It is a good synopsis of where Canada has stood for many years on the question of nuclear disarmament. It is what we have suggested and acted upon with all countries that have nuclear arms.

We have the Candu reactors which have been used by some countries to get their plutonium for their bombs. It was a no-no but how can you stop someone that willl lie to you in order to make their armoury stronger than their neighbours.

This thread is not about the proliferation of nuclear bombs. It is about some government official in India that was denied entrance into the U.S. because he was under scrutiny for having allowed a massacre of citizens to occur in his state.

It was suggested that America had overstepped the boundaries of good global citizenship by not allowing this person to enter the U.S. That it (the U.S.)would seem to tolerate this kind of activity, had they allowed entry to this person at this time, could be construed as accepting of this behaviour by friends of the U.S.

Enemies would pursue this as the way things are in America. I don't think that it is so. Do you?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:02 pm

kensloft wrote: ........ It is about some government official in India that was denied entrance into the U.S. because he was under scrutiny for having allowed a massacre of citizens to occur in his state.

It was suggested that America had overstepped the boundaries of good global citizenship by not allowing this person to enter the U.S. That it (the U.S.)would seem to tolerate this kind of activity, had they allowed entry to this person at this time, could be construed as accepting of this behaviour by friends of the U.S.

Enemies would pursue this as the way things are in America. I don't think that it is so. Do you?

Your post is in a very bad taste distorting the issue I have raised for discussion. Now I can understand your reaction as you can not tolerate a different point of view. Your definitions of friends and enemies make a sick reading.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:52 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Your post is in a very bad taste distorting the issue I have raised for discussion. Now I can understand your reaction as you can not tolerate a different point of view. Your definitions of friends and enemies make a sick reading.

I have been following every post in this thread. I have no idea why you would call the quoted remarks either distasteful or distorted. Please clarify.

Post by **kensloft** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:36 am

Originally Posted by kensloft

........ It is about some government official in India that was denied entrance into the U.S. because he was under scrutiny for having allowed a massacre of citizens to occur in his state.

It was suggested that America had overstepped the boundaries of good global citizenship by not allowing this person to enter the U.S. That it (the U.S.)would seem to tolerate this kind of activity, had they allowed entry to this person at this time, could be construed as accepting of this behaviour by friends of the U.S.

Enemies would pursue this as the way things are in America. I don't think that it is so. Do you?

Taking portions of posts and using these things out of context is a way that people that don't want to face the fact that they are wrong use as the means of getting out of their predicament. Is this debate?

Suresh Gupta wrote: Your post is in a very bad taste distorting the issue I have raised for discussion. Now I can understand your reaction as you can not tolerate a different point of view. Your definitions of friends and enemies make a sick reading.

This is the topic that you introduced in whole

Double standards of Bush adminstration

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's newspapers in India are full of stories about Bush administration adopting double standards and refusing entry to the Chief Minister of an Indian State, Gujrat. The Chief Minister has commented that "It is a matter of India's prestige and sovereignty. If an Ameriacan wants to come to India, are we going to deny him visa because of what they did in Iraq".

India's foreign ministry's spokesman has said that "The action is uncalled for and displays lack of courtesy and sensitivity towards an elected chief minister of a state of India".

India's ruling party's spokesman said that "India will feel strongly when a CM is denied visa".

I am an Indian citizen and feel hurt and insulted at double standards being adopted by Bush administration and forcing its own laws on my country. After creating situations where lakhs of innocent people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush administration is now in the process of hurting Indians.

Talk about double standards!!! Get a grip!

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:57 am

koan wrote: I have been following every post in this thread. I have no idea why you would call the quoted remarks either distasteful or distorted. Please clarify.

I will clarify but I am sure that you will not agree with my clarification as you either do not want to understand or feel that super power US can never do wrong. So far you have displayed your inability to appreciate that there can be a different view to any action taken by US administration. Also you must understand that I am not in the discussion to protect, this person, as you call him. Law of my country does not hold him guilty of any crime, and if at any time law holds him guilty he will be punished. No body has any authority in my country to pronounce him guilty except under a process of law. But US administration has done it, and this is what I am protesting and you peple are defending.

It is about some government official in India that was denied entrance into the U.S. because he was under scrutiny for having allowed a massacre of citizens to occur in his state.

He is not a government official. He is constitutionally elected Chief Minister of a state of India like your President Bush. Indian law has not held him guilty. People of Gujrat have elected him as their Chief Minister (and this election was after these riots).

He is not under scrutiny for allowing any massacre. A communal clash broke out and his administration took all possible steps to control that. Opposition parties and some activist groups feel that he did not take enough measures to control the riots. It happens with every body in power. Even your President Bush is being criticized for forcing war on Iraq.

It was suggested that America had overstepped the boundaries of good global citizenship by not allowing this person to enter the U.S. That it (the U.S.)would seem to tolerate this kind of activity, had they allowed entry to this person at this time, could be construed as accepting of this behaviour by friends of the U.S.

Yes, US has taken an action which is improper, without any basis, one sided, to appease a section of people in US, and most important of all an interference in India's internal matters and an insult to a constitutional authority of another independent democratic country. Whatever crime this constutionally elected CM is accused of has no impact on US. And what is this silly excuse "That it (the U.S.) would seem to tolerate this kind of activity, had they allowed entry to this person at this time, could be construed as accepting of this behaviour by friends of the U.S." Who are these friends of US whom US adminisdtration is trying to please by insulting India's honour?

Enemies would pursue this as the way things are in America. I don't think that it is so. Do you?

And who are these enemies? I or any other person who does not agree with US administration's action and who opines that US has double standards in dealing with various countries and its own doings.

I am sorry that this discussion has come to this stage, but the reaction to the points I have raised is really extraordinary. If ordinary American citizens become so enraged on different views expressed by me then actions of US adminstration, resulting in war and killing thousand of people, is not a surprise to me.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:03 am

kensloft wrote: Taking portions of posts and using these things out of context is a way that people that don't want to face the fact that they are wrong use as the means of getting out of their predicament. Is this debate?

This is the topic that you introduced in whole

Talk about double standards!!! Get a grip!

Is this debate, you ask me. It would be better if you ask yourself and your friends. As far as I am concerned I tried to find some logic in your post but could not. You are right. Perhaps I am loosing my grip.

Post by **kensloft** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:00 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Is this debate, you ask me. It would be better if you ask yourself and your friends. As far as I am concerned I tried to find some logic in your post but could not. You are right. Perhaps I am loosing my grip.
First and foremost I would like for you to read where it is that I live.

You are also using what I say in addressing another poster with your rationale of how you are trying to lead the topic under discussion.

Your proclivity of trying to obfuscate the issue is all too apparent.

The elected official, whether or not you believe it, is a government official. Semantics does not work well in justifying an untenuous position.

You can't find any logic in what I say because it defies your stance and hence your credibility. I don't need friends to back me up or anything like that because I am quite capable of seeing if and when I am wrong. When I am wrong... I say so! In this particular case I am not. Just because your rule of law says that this person is not guilty does not mean that he isn't everywhere in the world! You have your laws. Canada has its laws and the U.S.A. has its laws.

Your official is a lowly governor of a state as opposed to the prime minister. He is not anything at all like the president. To try to manipulate the president as being only as worthy as a governor is unworthy of comment.

In peace.

kensloft

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:42 am

kensloft wrote: First and foremost I would like for you to read where it is that I live.

You are also using what I say in addressing another poster with your rationale of how you are trying to lead the topic under discussion.

Your proclivity of trying to obfuscate the issue is all too apparent.

I think the discussion is now leading to a situation where all are becoming too personal, and the issue has already been pushed in to the background.

The elected official, whether or not you believe it, is a government official. Semantics does not work well in justifying an untenuous position.

Elected persons are public servants and not government officials.

You can't find any logic in what I say because it defies your stance and hence your credibility. I don't need friends to back me up or anything like that because I am quite capable of seeing if and when I am wrong. When I am wrong... I say so! In this particular case I am not. Just because your rule of law says that this person is not guilty does not mean that he isn't everywhere in the world! You have your laws. Canada has its laws and the U.S.A. has its laws.

Indian rule of law has not yet said whether Mr. Modi is guilty or not. The legal process is on and has not concluded. Why don't you understand such a simple fact? How you and US administration can pronounce him guilty by applying your rules. Even if your rules are applied on him can US or Canadian law pronounce him guilty without giving him any opportunity to explain his position. Your US and Canadian laws do not seem to have the element of natural justice.

Your official is a lowly governor of a state as opposed to the prime minister. He is not anything at all like the president. To try to manipulate the president as being only as worthy as a governor is unworthy of comment.

You use language which is offensive. What do you mean by 'lowly governor'. All constitutional authorities elected by the people are equal. They are elected to perform one or more specific constitutional functions with specified authority. No elected person is lowly or higher.

Be in peace. You want to conclude the discussion or go on like this?

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:54 am

I've wasted my time by reading this whole entire thread.

Sorry suresh, but my country has a right to let in who it wants to or not. You wont be able to be let in under the grounds of moral terpitude, if you dont pass muster.

But enough of India HAS managed to get a visa. Guess what? They stay. Is this whats its all about? Have you tried to get one and been denied?

Maybe we should base the UN in India. Nah.....we cant get them to leave! I just wonder how many visa's you'ld be willing to grant, if it had been your country?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:34 am

Raven wrote: I've wasted my time by reading this whole entire thread.

Sorry suresh, but my country has a right to let in who it wants to or not. You wont be able to be let in under the grounds of moral terpitude, if you dont pass muster.

But enough of India HAS managed to get a visa. Guess what? They stay. Is this whats its all about? Have you tried to get one and been denied?

Maybe we should base the UN in India. Nah.....we cant get them to leave! I just wonder how many visa's you'ld be willing to grant, if it had been your country?

So now you have joined the group of decent debators. Do you want me to say sorry that your time has been wasted?

You are right that your country has a right to let in who wants to or not but is that right unlimited or has some limitations. Also do you allow this right to other countries?

I am glad that you told me that I wont be able to be let in USA under the grounds of moral turpitude. Thanks for the warning. Although I have never thought of visiting USA but now it is entirely out of question.

I don't speak on behalf of my government. But if at any time Indian government denies visa to US officials on these lines I will like to see your reaction.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:22 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: I think the discussion is now leading to a situation where all are becoming too personal, and the issue has already been pushed in to the background. i believe it became 'personal' some time back, i quote you previously:

suresh gupta wrote: You people will never understand. It is not that you people can not understand. May be because you people don't want to understand. May be you people are afraid that reality may not be as per your liking.hardly a dispassionate, logical expression. essentially, you are saying we are wrong, will always be wrong, and you can never be convinced otherwise. so much for 'debate'.

Elected persons are public servants and not government officials.

the two terms are used essentially synonymously here. how about a quick lesson in faulty logic based upon the above.

all elected persons are public servants.

no elected persons are government officials.

therefore, no government officials are public servants.

all cats are animals.

no cats are dogs.

therefore, no dogs are animals.

Indian rule of law has not yet said whether Mr. Modi is guilty or not. The legal process is on and has not concluded. Why don't you understand such a simple fact? How you and US administration can pronounce him guilty by applying your rules.'pronouncing someone guilty' is performed in a court of law. the US has not pronounced him guilty. we've simply said that we consider him an undesireable person, and do not wish to allow him entry to our SOVEREIGN NATION.

Even if your rules are applied on him can US or Canadian law pronounce him guilty without giving him any opportunity to explain his position. Your US and Canadian laws do not seem to have the element of natural justice. as above. we have not said he is guilty. we've said that there are enough questions about his actions with regard to what happened in his state, that we prefer that he not enter our country. as a SOVEREIGN NATION, that is our right.

as it is your right to refuse entry to the governor of california, as he is austrian, and his father was a nazi. india is welcome to forbid entry to him on that basis. if it so chooses. why? because india is a SOVEREIGN NATION, and has the right to forbid entry to anyone on any basis it chooses. your argument that the US is 'meddling in india's internal affairs' has no basis whatsoever. the US isn't going to india and setting up a tribunal to try the CM for the crimes he's accused of. that's for india to do. we, however, have NO obligation to allow him into our country.

You use language which is offensive. What do you mean by 'lowly governor'. All constitutional authorities elected by the people are equal. i can't speak for india's constitution, as i don't know its specifics. however, in the united states, each of our states is a member of the nation as a whole. the governor of a state is NOT equal to the president, nor equal to the supreme court, or the US legislature. a governor has a wholey different standing, as our states are, in many respects, sovereign 'sub' nations of the nation as a whole. state government is a subset of our federal government. 'lowly' is perhaps not the right word, but very definitely, the governor of the state of Maine does NOT have equal standing with the president of the nation. are you saying that the CM is equivalent to the PM?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:43 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: I will clarify but I am sure that you will not agree with my clarification as you either do not want to understand or feel that super power US can never do wrong. So far you have displayed your inability to appreciate that there can be a different view to any action taken by US administration. Also you must understand that I am not in the discussion to protect, this person, as you call him. Law of my country does not hold him guilty of any crime, and if at any time law holds him guilty he will be punished. No body has any authority in my country to pronounce him guilty except under a process of law. But US administration has done it, and this is what I am protesting and you peple are defending.

He is not a government official. He is constitutionally elected Chief Minister of a state of India like your President Bush. Indian law has not held him guilty. People of Gujrat have elected him as their Chief Minister (and this election was after these riots).

He is not under scrutiny for allowing any massacre. A communal clash broke out and his administration took all possible steps to control that. Opposition parties and some activist groups feel that he did not take enough measures to control the riots. It happens with every body in power. Even your President Bush is being criticized for forcing war on Iraq.

Yes, US has taken an action which is improper, without any basis, one sided, to appease a section of people in US, and most important of all an interference in India's internal matters and an insult to a constitutional authority of another independent democratic country. Whatever crime this constutionally elected CM is accused of has no impact on US. And what is this silly excuse "That it (the U.S.) would seem to tolerate this kind of activity, had they allowed entry to this person at this time, could be construed as accepting of this behaviour by friends of the U.S." Who are these friends of US whom US adminisdtration is trying to please by insulting India's honour?

And who are these enemies? I or any other person who does not agree with US administration's action and who opines that US has double standards in dealing with various countries and its own doings.

I am sorry that this discussion has come to this stage, but the reaction to the points I have raised is really extraordinary. If ordinary American citizens become so enraged on different views expressed by me then actions of US adminstration, resulting in war and killing thousand of people, is not a surprise to me.

First of all, DITTO on what anastrophe said.

Secondly, DITTO on what kensloft said, I also am not an American and have criticised them myself. In this case, I just think you are wrong.

Thirdly, just because other people agree that they disagree with you does not make them a group of friends out to get you.

I think that just about covers everything.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:57 pm

koan wrote: I also am not an American
nonsense and fiddlesticks! all canadians are americans! the difference is you're not from the United States, the country that has usurped "american" to mean "U.S. citizen"!

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:42 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Dear Jives, I thank you and also congratulate you for such a balanced analysis of the issue.

My pleasure, I have heard much about you and your intelligence from the other Garderners, and I'm pleased that you enjoyed my post.

strong and propsperous people should display humility and not arrogance. Branches of a tree loaded with fruits bent downwards and not upwards. America has been gifted by the God and I feel that its behaiour should be on these lines.

You and I both. That is excellent advice.

US puts lot of pressure on one country to change its ways, does not even hesitate to attack it. But before another country its behaviour is like dealing with a pampered and spoiled child meeting all his unreasonable demands even praising it to score a point over other countries.

I am not going to personally deny this. Are Americans a generally unpredictable lot? Most definitely. I think it comes from the fact that we, ourselves, are not a very old country. 200 odd years is not enough to gain the wisdom to be a world leader. Especially for such a fun-loving, hedonistic, and emotional people. Only 100 years ago we were pioneering the West. (A place where I still live, by the way, and is still only "semi-civilized" and proud of it. Speaking of pride, Americans are a very proud people too. (I believe rightly so, just look at American accomplishements in the 20th century.)

But the point remains that American is in power, in control of a military that is frighteningly technically proficient, and with the will to use it. Americans are very sure of the "rightness" of everything they do. I'd like to pretend that I think we don't bully other nations,( we certainly don't teach our children that philosophy, I know that for a fact) but I'm a realist. I know that we occasionally use our power unwisely and perhaps with a "misguided" goal in mind.

US wants to write world history but does not learn from its self-written history. First it armed Adghanistan against Russians, and after some time it attacked it. It spoiled Iran and now it is preparing to attack it. Arms given by US to such countries are lending in the hands of terrorists, and are being used against American people. History has many more similar situations. Even today US is not able to differentiate between friends and enemies.

Very true. and disconcerting. The reason for this is both our greatest strength and our worst fault. Every four years we vote on another leader of our country. Although this prevents a very bad and aggressive president from remaining in power, it also has a tendency to cause incontinuity on our foreign policy. New regimes often do the exact opposite of their predessors. This can cause the exact kind of confusion and counterproductiveness you so astutely stated.

I am not able to undersstand the need of offering F-16s to Pakistan and F-18s to India. These two countries are trying to build up confidence for eah other. They do not need any arms. They need ncouragement for creating CBMs. The money the are going to spend on these arms should be used for improving the quality of life of its people. America, as a super power, as elder brother in global family, should put sense in the minds of these countries rather than starting a arms race in the reason. What can be the compulsions before Ameriaca for doimg this?

I have two reasons to give you, both of which may seem illogical to you:

1. We are giving arms to Pakistan as a reward for their help in defeating the Taliban. Pure and simple. If we can gain friends in the Middle East, we believe we can get to the root of the terrorism problem. ( I have other ideas on that, but I'll post them later)

2.We are giving you arms to maintain our friendship and to make sure that the balance of power isn't shifted. If we were to upset the balance between yourself and Pakistan, they might decide the advantage was great enough to warrant an offensive action. (That would be a real mess.)

I'll come back later and say more...right now I have to teach a class of night school kids the wonders and joys of public speaking!

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:03 pm

anastrophe wrote: nonsense and fiddlesticks! all canadians are americans! the difference is you're not from the United States, the country that has usurped "american" to mean "U.S. citizen"!

I'm only American if you add the North, placing me above you (hehe)

I heard once that America got its name from a bunch of Freemasons and their direction to follow the star "Merica" and create a new land. There are carvings of maise on a Freemason temple in Europe that predate Columbus. Just some useless trivia.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:27 pm

Jives wrote: I think it comes from the fact that we, ourselves, are not a very old country. 200 odd years is not enough to gain the wisdom to be a world leader. Especially for such a fun-loving, hedonistic, and emotional people.
while this is true, it is worth noting that the U.S. political system is the oldest continuously functioning government on the planet. Our system has outlived all others. No small accomplishment considering events the world over the last 200+ years.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:58 pm

Good point, although it seems to me that the British and French systems have been around longer haven't they?

At any rate, I'd like to again point out that although America fails in foreign policy occasionally, it's not through lack of trying. Even horrible disasters such as the Shaw of Iran, began with the most benign intentions.

Now, that's just speaking about the government of the U.S. if we were to talk about the American corporations, I'd have to say that I do not think that they act with altruistic motives. They can be downright vicious and nasty in their motives and actions.

There is not nearly enough control on them IMO.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:01 pm

Wasn't "America" named after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci? He mapped the entire East Coast and put his name prominently on his maps. As others used them, they began to refer to the New World as "America". I'll bet that pissed off Christopher Columbus no end.

Post by **kensloft** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:48 pm

anastrophe wrote: nonsense and fiddlesticks! all canadians are americans! the difference is you're not from the United States, the country that has usurped "american" to mean "U.S. citizen"!
When are you going to become the 11th province? Chuckle chuckle.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:17 pm

Vatican says that letting Terri die without food amounts to murder.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:19 pm

A Presidential Commission says that US was "Dead Wrong" on Iraq.