Lawmakers from British PM Tony Blair ruling Labour Party are to defy their leader by standing at the imminent general election on a specific anti-Iraq war ticket. Thus far 17 Labour MPs have signed up to a declaration to voters saying they opposed the conflict and will do everythin in their power to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end.
The campaign is a serious snub for Blair, who was Washington's strongest international backer of US led invasion of Iraq.
Double standards of Bush adminstration
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: A Presidential Commission says that US was "Dead Wrong" on Iraq.
Now see? This is actually one of the reasons why I think America is great. In other countries, no one is allowed to question the government, much less come out on the front pages with an attack that says the President was "dead wrong" about Iraq.
In America, we bring our problems out into the light and discuss them, sometimes that is emotional and difficult, but it shows a tendency to want to improve, so perhaps the double standards you speak of are only temporary after all. We may get better!
Now see? This is actually one of the reasons why I think America is great. In other countries, no one is allowed to question the government, much less come out on the front pages with an attack that says the President was "dead wrong" about Iraq.
In America, we bring our problems out into the light and discuss them, sometimes that is emotional and difficult, but it shows a tendency to want to improve, so perhaps the double standards you speak of are only temporary after all. We may get better!
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Two views on New Delhi and Wasington ties in a newspaper in India -
One - US will help India emerge as a global force.
Two - America is a dangerous ally to have.
One - US will help India emerge as a global force.
Two - America is a dangerous ally to have.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Jives wrote: Now see? This is actually one of the reasons why I think America is great. In other countries, no one is allowed to question the government, much less come out on the front pages with an attack that says the President was "dead wrong" about Iraq.
In America, we bring our problems out into the light and discuss them, sometimes that is emotional and difficult, but it shows a tendency to want to improve, so perhaps the double standards you speak of are only temporary after all. We may get better!
Let us hope so.
In America, we bring our problems out into the light and discuss them, sometimes that is emotional and difficult, but it shows a tendency to want to improve, so perhaps the double standards you speak of are only temporary after all. We may get better!
Let us hope so.
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: Two views on New Delhi and Wasington ties in a newspaper in India -
One - US will help India emerge as a global force.
I absolutely agree. India is already enjoying the benefits of increased U.S trade and attention, and the Indian people have been actively educating themselves for the last three decades. it's only a matter of time until they emerge as a major Planetary power.
Two - America is a dangerous ally to have.
"If you want to hang out with the big boys you'd better bring a big stick. " as my baseball coach used to say.
"Having tigers as friends will keep you from being devoured by bears, as long as you aren't around at their dinner time." as I used to say.
One - US will help India emerge as a global force.
I absolutely agree. India is already enjoying the benefits of increased U.S trade and attention, and the Indian people have been actively educating themselves for the last three decades. it's only a matter of time until they emerge as a major Planetary power.
Two - America is a dangerous ally to have.
"If you want to hang out with the big boys you'd better bring a big stick. " as my baseball coach used to say.
"Having tigers as friends will keep you from being devoured by bears, as long as you aren't around at their dinner time." as I used to say.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Jives wrote: I absolutely agree. India is already enjoying the benefits of increased U.S trade and attention, and the Indian people have been actively educating themselves for the last three decades. it's only a matter of time until they emerge as a major Planetary power.
I hope it happens in my life time.
"If you want to hang out with the big boys you'd better bring a big stick. " as my baseball coach used to say.
"Having tigers as friends will keep you from being devoured by bears, as long as you aren't around at their dinner time." as I used to say.
I only wish that Indian government keeps this in mind while dealing with the tiger especially when it feels himself threatened with the emergence of another global power..
I hope it happens in my life time.
"If you want to hang out with the big boys you'd better bring a big stick. " as my baseball coach used to say.
"Having tigers as friends will keep you from being devoured by bears, as long as you aren't around at their dinner time." as I used to say.
I only wish that Indian government keeps this in mind while dealing with the tiger especially when it feels himself threatened with the emergence of another global power..
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Seen on another discussion forum, repotedly based on ews from Los Angles Times:
A Con Job by Pakistan's Pal, George Bush
Trying to follow the U.S. policy on the proliferation of nuclear weapons is like watching a three-card monte game on a city street corner. Except the stakes are higher.
The announcement Friday that the United States is authorizing the sale to Pakistan of F-16 fighter jets capable of delivering nuclear warheads †and thereby escalating the region's nuclear arms race †is the latest example of how the most important issue on the planet is being bungled by the Bush administration.
Consider this dizzying series of Bush II-era actions:
We have thrown away thousands of Iraqi and American lives and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars after crying wolf on Iraq's long-defunct nuclear weapons program and now expect the world to believe similar scary stories about neighboring Iran.
We have cozied up to Pakistan for more than three years as it freely allowed the operation of the most extravagantly irresponsible nuclear arms bazaar the world has ever seen.
We sabotaged negotiations with North Korea by telling allies that Pyongyang had supplied nuclear material to Libya, even though the Bush administration knew that the country of origin of those shipments was our "ally," Pakistan.
Now, Lockheed Martin has been saved from closing its F-16 production line by the White House decision to lift the arms embargo on Pakistan and allow the sale. The decision, which ends a 1990 embargo put in place by the president's father in reprisal for Pakistan's development of a nuclear arsenal, is especially odd at a time when we are berating European nations for considering lifting their arms embargo on China.
The White House says the F-16s are a reward to Islamabad for its help in disrupting terrorism networks, despite a decade of Pakistan's strong support of Al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Yet Pakistan's ruling generals could be excused for believing that Washington is not seriously concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. How else to explain invading a country †Iraq †that didn't possess nukes, didn't sell nuclear technology to unstable nations and didn't maintain an unholy alliance with Al Qaeda †and then turning around and giving the plum prizes of U.S. military ingenuity to the country that did?
Even as the Bush administration continues to confront Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, Islamabad has admitted that Pakistani nuclear weapons trafficker Abdul Qadeer Khan †the father of his nation's nuclear bomb †provided Iran with the centrifuges essential to such a program. Further, new evidence reveals that Khan marketed to Iran and Libya not only the materials needed for a nuclear bomb but the engineering competence to actually make one.
Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf insists Khan was running his nuclear smuggling operation under the radar of the military government that brought Musharraf to power. And although this is a highly implausible claim given the reach of the military's power and the scope of the operation, the White House has found it convenient to buy it hook, line and sinker †all the better to remarket Pakistan to the American people as a war-on-terrorism ally.
While Pakistan was receiving such heaping helpings of benefit of the doubt, North Korea became the Bush administration's scapegoat for the rapid nuclear proliferation happening on its watch, according to the Washington Post. "In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya," wrote the Post. "But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction." Sources told the paper that "Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller [of uranium hexafluoride] was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner."
One result of the United States shortsightedly pulling this fast one has been the collapse of multilateral nonproliferation talks with Pyongyang. Yet in the long term, the cost is much greater: a dramatic erosion of trust in U.S. statements on nuclear proliferation.
From Iraq to Iran, North Korea to Pakistan, the Bush administration has pulled so many con jobs that it is difficult for anybody to take it seriously. Unfortunately, though, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is as serious as it gets.
A Con Job by Pakistan's Pal, George Bush
Trying to follow the U.S. policy on the proliferation of nuclear weapons is like watching a three-card monte game on a city street corner. Except the stakes are higher.
The announcement Friday that the United States is authorizing the sale to Pakistan of F-16 fighter jets capable of delivering nuclear warheads †and thereby escalating the region's nuclear arms race †is the latest example of how the most important issue on the planet is being bungled by the Bush administration.
Consider this dizzying series of Bush II-era actions:
We have thrown away thousands of Iraqi and American lives and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars after crying wolf on Iraq's long-defunct nuclear weapons program and now expect the world to believe similar scary stories about neighboring Iran.
We have cozied up to Pakistan for more than three years as it freely allowed the operation of the most extravagantly irresponsible nuclear arms bazaar the world has ever seen.
We sabotaged negotiations with North Korea by telling allies that Pyongyang had supplied nuclear material to Libya, even though the Bush administration knew that the country of origin of those shipments was our "ally," Pakistan.
Now, Lockheed Martin has been saved from closing its F-16 production line by the White House decision to lift the arms embargo on Pakistan and allow the sale. The decision, which ends a 1990 embargo put in place by the president's father in reprisal for Pakistan's development of a nuclear arsenal, is especially odd at a time when we are berating European nations for considering lifting their arms embargo on China.
The White House says the F-16s are a reward to Islamabad for its help in disrupting terrorism networks, despite a decade of Pakistan's strong support of Al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Yet Pakistan's ruling generals could be excused for believing that Washington is not seriously concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. How else to explain invading a country †Iraq †that didn't possess nukes, didn't sell nuclear technology to unstable nations and didn't maintain an unholy alliance with Al Qaeda †and then turning around and giving the plum prizes of U.S. military ingenuity to the country that did?
Even as the Bush administration continues to confront Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, Islamabad has admitted that Pakistani nuclear weapons trafficker Abdul Qadeer Khan †the father of his nation's nuclear bomb †provided Iran with the centrifuges essential to such a program. Further, new evidence reveals that Khan marketed to Iran and Libya not only the materials needed for a nuclear bomb but the engineering competence to actually make one.
Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf insists Khan was running his nuclear smuggling operation under the radar of the military government that brought Musharraf to power. And although this is a highly implausible claim given the reach of the military's power and the scope of the operation, the White House has found it convenient to buy it hook, line and sinker †all the better to remarket Pakistan to the American people as a war-on-terrorism ally.
While Pakistan was receiving such heaping helpings of benefit of the doubt, North Korea became the Bush administration's scapegoat for the rapid nuclear proliferation happening on its watch, according to the Washington Post. "In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya," wrote the Post. "But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction." Sources told the paper that "Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller [of uranium hexafluoride] was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner."
One result of the United States shortsightedly pulling this fast one has been the collapse of multilateral nonproliferation talks with Pyongyang. Yet in the long term, the cost is much greater: a dramatic erosion of trust in U.S. statements on nuclear proliferation.
From Iraq to Iran, North Korea to Pakistan, the Bush administration has pulled so many con jobs that it is difficult for anybody to take it seriously. Unfortunately, though, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is as serious as it gets.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Have you read the article on "The oil factor in Bush's 'war on tyranny'"
By F William Engdahl on :
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
By F William Engdahl on :
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: Seen on another discussion forum, repotedly based on ews from Los Angles Times:
A Con Job by Pakistan's Pal, George Bush
Trying to follow the U.S. policy on the proliferation of nuclear weapons is like watching a three-card monte game on a city street corner. Except the stakes are higher.
The announcement Friday that the United States is authorizing the sale to Pakistan of F-16 fighter jets capable of delivering nuclear warheads †and thereby escalating the region's nuclear arms race †is the latest example of how the most important issue on the planet is being bungled by the Bush administration.
Consider this dizzying series of Bush II-era actions:
We have thrown away thousands of Iraqi and American lives and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars after crying wolf on Iraq's long-defunct nuclear weapons program and now expect the world to believe similar scary stories about neighboring Iran.
We have cozied up to Pakistan for more than three years as it freely allowed the operation of the most extravagantly irresponsible nuclear arms bazaar the world has ever seen.
We sabotaged negotiations with North Korea by telling allies that Pyongyang had supplied nuclear material to Libya, even though the Bush administration knew that the country of origin of those shipments was our "ally," Pakistan.
Now, Lockheed Martin has been saved from closing its F-16 production line by the White House decision to lift the arms embargo on Pakistan and allow the sale. The decision, which ends a 1990 embargo put in place by the president's father in reprisal for Pakistan's development of a nuclear arsenal, is especially odd at a time when we are berating European nations for considering lifting their arms embargo on China.
The White House says the F-16s are a reward to Islamabad for its help in disrupting terrorism networks, despite a decade of Pakistan's strong support of Al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Yet Pakistan's ruling generals could be excused for believing that Washington is not seriously concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. How else to explain invading a country †Iraq †that didn't possess nukes, didn't sell nuclear technology to unstable nations and didn't maintain an unholy alliance with Al Qaeda †and then turning around and giving the plum prizes of U.S. military ingenuity to the country that did?
Even as the Bush administration continues to confront Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, Islamabad has admitted that Pakistani nuclear weapons trafficker Abdul Qadeer Khan †the father of his nation's nuclear bomb †provided Iran with the centrifuges essential to such a program. Further, new evidence reveals that Khan marketed to Iran and Libya not only the materials needed for a nuclear bomb but the engineering competence to actually make one.
Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf insists Khan was running his nuclear smuggling operation under the radar of the military government that brought Musharraf to power. And although this is a highly implausible claim given the reach of the military's power and the scope of the operation, the White House has found it convenient to buy it hook, line and sinker †all the better to remarket Pakistan to the American people as a war-on-terrorism ally.
While Pakistan was receiving such heaping helpings of benefit of the doubt, North Korea became the Bush administration's scapegoat for the rapid nuclear proliferation happening on its watch, according to the Washington Post. "In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya," wrote the Post. "But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction." Sources told the paper that "Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller [of uranium hexafluoride] was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner."
One result of the United States shortsightedly pulling this fast one has been the collapse of multilateral nonproliferation talks with Pyongyang. Yet in the long term, the cost is much greater: a dramatic erosion of trust in U.S. statements on nuclear proliferation.
From Iraq to Iran, North Korea to Pakistan, the Bush administration has pulled so many con jobs that it is difficult for anybody to take it seriously. Unfortunately, though, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is as serious as it gets.
Let's go back to the bottom line. India took Canadian technology and produced the A bomb after lying to Canadians about what was being done with the plutonium. So you honest Abes of the Orient expect us to take you at your word?
Now you want to get the latest in jet warfare to defend yourself against what?
A Con Job by Pakistan's Pal, George Bush
Trying to follow the U.S. policy on the proliferation of nuclear weapons is like watching a three-card monte game on a city street corner. Except the stakes are higher.
The announcement Friday that the United States is authorizing the sale to Pakistan of F-16 fighter jets capable of delivering nuclear warheads †and thereby escalating the region's nuclear arms race †is the latest example of how the most important issue on the planet is being bungled by the Bush administration.
Consider this dizzying series of Bush II-era actions:
We have thrown away thousands of Iraqi and American lives and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars after crying wolf on Iraq's long-defunct nuclear weapons program and now expect the world to believe similar scary stories about neighboring Iran.
We have cozied up to Pakistan for more than three years as it freely allowed the operation of the most extravagantly irresponsible nuclear arms bazaar the world has ever seen.
We sabotaged negotiations with North Korea by telling allies that Pyongyang had supplied nuclear material to Libya, even though the Bush administration knew that the country of origin of those shipments was our "ally," Pakistan.
Now, Lockheed Martin has been saved from closing its F-16 production line by the White House decision to lift the arms embargo on Pakistan and allow the sale. The decision, which ends a 1990 embargo put in place by the president's father in reprisal for Pakistan's development of a nuclear arsenal, is especially odd at a time when we are berating European nations for considering lifting their arms embargo on China.
The White House says the F-16s are a reward to Islamabad for its help in disrupting terrorism networks, despite a decade of Pakistan's strong support of Al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Yet Pakistan's ruling generals could be excused for believing that Washington is not seriously concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. How else to explain invading a country †Iraq †that didn't possess nukes, didn't sell nuclear technology to unstable nations and didn't maintain an unholy alliance with Al Qaeda †and then turning around and giving the plum prizes of U.S. military ingenuity to the country that did?
Even as the Bush administration continues to confront Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, Islamabad has admitted that Pakistani nuclear weapons trafficker Abdul Qadeer Khan †the father of his nation's nuclear bomb †provided Iran with the centrifuges essential to such a program. Further, new evidence reveals that Khan marketed to Iran and Libya not only the materials needed for a nuclear bomb but the engineering competence to actually make one.
Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf insists Khan was running his nuclear smuggling operation under the radar of the military government that brought Musharraf to power. And although this is a highly implausible claim given the reach of the military's power and the scope of the operation, the White House has found it convenient to buy it hook, line and sinker †all the better to remarket Pakistan to the American people as a war-on-terrorism ally.
While Pakistan was receiving such heaping helpings of benefit of the doubt, North Korea became the Bush administration's scapegoat for the rapid nuclear proliferation happening on its watch, according to the Washington Post. "In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya," wrote the Post. "But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction." Sources told the paper that "Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller [of uranium hexafluoride] was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner."
One result of the United States shortsightedly pulling this fast one has been the collapse of multilateral nonproliferation talks with Pyongyang. Yet in the long term, the cost is much greater: a dramatic erosion of trust in U.S. statements on nuclear proliferation.
From Iraq to Iran, North Korea to Pakistan, the Bush administration has pulled so many con jobs that it is difficult for anybody to take it seriously. Unfortunately, though, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is as serious as it gets.
Let's go back to the bottom line. India took Canadian technology and produced the A bomb after lying to Canadians about what was being done with the plutonium. So you honest Abes of the Orient expect us to take you at your word?
Now you want to get the latest in jet warfare to defend yourself against what?
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Their own neighbors, whom they ARENT at peace with. (pakistan)
Besides, THEY want to be a world super power, and they want the US to get them there.
Besides, THEY want to be a world super power, and they want the US to get them there.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: Let's go back to the bottom line. India took Canadian technology and produced the A bomb after lying to Canadians about what was being done with the plutonium. So you honest Abes of the Orient expect us to take you at your word?
Now you want to get the latest in jet warfare to defend yourself against what?
Keep on with your abuses. This is the best thing you can do.
Now you want to get the latest in jet warfare to defend yourself against what?
Keep on with your abuses. This is the best thing you can do.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Raven wrote: Their own neighbors, whom they ARENT at peace with. (pakistan)
Besides, THEY want to be a world super power, and they want the US to get them there.
US or not, India is going to be a super power. And neighbours want to be at peace with each other. It is also going to happen. Sooner, if only self-proclaimed guardians of this world stop interfering.
Besides, THEY want to be a world super power, and they want the US to get them there.
US or not, India is going to be a super power. And neighbours want to be at peace with each other. It is also going to happen. Sooner, if only self-proclaimed guardians of this world stop interfering.
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: Keep on with your abuses. This is the best thing you can do.
Still trying to escape reality, huh, Gupta? Maybe because they see that you have a foreign name they'll figure that it is those damn, almost, natives are trying to put and keep you down. What a piece of excremental nonsense.
Still trying to escape reality, huh, Gupta? Maybe because they see that you have a foreign name they'll figure that it is those damn, almost, natives are trying to put and keep you down. What a piece of excremental nonsense.
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: US or not, India is going to be a super power. And neighbours want to be at peace with each other. It is also going to happen. Sooner, if only self-proclaimed guardians of this world stop interfering.
Ah! the power trip. The masters of the universe have finally come to save us all. god bless you for taking us into reality. Thanx. For showing us who and what you are. I am sure your pm will thank you for your great intercession. We're so stupid and you're so smart. It is all so simple! Thank you for leading us down the path to enlightenment. Bonehead! Still trying to lie and steal the secrets of the atom. Huh?
You must be very proud standing next to all the dead people in Iraq that your deceptions have laid in their graves you racist piece of sh*t. Excuse me mighty one... only white folk are racists.
That is what I love about writing. It leaves a trail that can be followed by others. You are too cool.
Vee haff vays uff makink you vant to doink vat vee vant!
Ah! the power trip. The masters of the universe have finally come to save us all. god bless you for taking us into reality. Thanx. For showing us who and what you are. I am sure your pm will thank you for your great intercession. We're so stupid and you're so smart. It is all so simple! Thank you for leading us down the path to enlightenment. Bonehead! Still trying to lie and steal the secrets of the atom. Huh?
You must be very proud standing next to all the dead people in Iraq that your deceptions have laid in their graves you racist piece of sh*t. Excuse me mighty one... only white folk are racists.
That is what I love about writing. It leaves a trail that can be followed by others. You are too cool.
Vee haff vays uff makink you vant to doink vat vee vant!
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: Still trying to escape reality, huh, Gupta? Maybe because they see that you have a foreign name they'll figure that it is those damn, almost, natives are trying to put and keep you down. What a piece of excremental nonsense.
More abuses. Good. Soon you are going to be a major in the science of abusing. :-5
More abuses. Good. Soon you are going to be a major in the science of abusing. :-5
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: Ah! the power trip. The masters of the universe have finally come to save us all. god bless you for taking us into reality. Thanx. For showing us who and what you are. I am sure your pm will thank you for your great intercession. We're so stupid and you're so smart. It is all so simple! Thank you for leading us down the path to enlightenment. Bonehead! Still trying to lie and steal the secrets of the atom. Huh?
You must be very proud standing next to all the dead people in Iraq that your deceptions have laid in their graves you racist piece of sh*t. Excuse me mighty one... only white folk are racists.
That is what I love about writing. It leaves a trail that can be followed by others. You are too cool.
Vee haff vays uff makink you vant to doink vat vee vant!
Another instalment of abuses. You seem to have lot of them in store. Keep them coming. Only this way you can win. :-5
You must be very proud standing next to all the dead people in Iraq that your deceptions have laid in their graves you racist piece of sh*t. Excuse me mighty one... only white folk are racists.
That is what I love about writing. It leaves a trail that can be followed by others. You are too cool.
Vee haff vays uff makink you vant to doink vat vee vant!
Another instalment of abuses. You seem to have lot of them in store. Keep them coming. Only this way you can win. :-5
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: More abuses. Good. Soon you are going to be a major in the science of abusing. :-5
Still a jerk, huh?
Still a jerk, huh?
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: Still a jerk, huh?
Gupta, you are too stupid to know.
Gupta, you are too stupid to know.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: Still a jerk, huh?
Many more I hope. :-5
Many more I hope. :-5
Double standards of Bush adminstration
When you know let me know.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: Gupta, you are too stupid to know.
Keep it up Pal. You are doing good. :-5
Keep it up Pal. You are doing good. :-5
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: Gupta, you are too stupid to know.
Abusing your own abuses. That makes it abuse-square. :-5
Abusing your own abuses. That makes it abuse-square. :-5
Double standards of Bush adminstration
It seems this stopped being a legitimate debate a few pages ago. Somewhere around the first page, actually.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
koan wrote: It seems this stopped being a legitimate debate a few pages ago. Somewhere around the first page, actually.
You are right. Now pleasantries are being exchanged. :wah: :-6 :wah:
You are right. Now pleasantries are being exchanged. :wah: :-6 :wah:
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Under debate on "Formula F16: Can we trust Uncle Sam?", a Professor of Jawahar Lal Nehru University says that "No, the US is trying to trigger another dangerous arms spiral". In the conluding para he says, " how easily do we forget that it is the US itself that started and fuelled the arms race on the subcontinent and what it is doing now by providing the arms aphrodisiac to impotent leaders on both sides of the border is to trigger another dangerous arms spiral".
All peace loving people should protest.
All peace loving people should protest.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: Under debate on "Formula F16: Can we trust Uncle Sam?", a Professor of Jawahar Lal Nehru University says that "No, the US is trying to trigger another dangerous arms spiral". In the conluding para he says, " how easily do we forget that it is the US itself that started and fuelled the arms race on the subcontinent and what it is doing now by providing the arms aphrodisiac to impotent leaders on both sides of the border is to trigger another dangerous arms spiral".
All peace loving people should protest.
i guess when india built atomic bombs, *bombs* mind you, designed to kill innocent people, it had, uh, nothing at all to do with an 'arms race'. heavens to betsy no.
all peace loving people should protest india's refusal to disarm.
All peace loving people should protest.
i guess when india built atomic bombs, *bombs* mind you, designed to kill innocent people, it had, uh, nothing at all to do with an 'arms race'. heavens to betsy no.
all peace loving people should protest india's refusal to disarm.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Double standards of Bush adminstration
SURESH & KENSLOFT
Time to change the subject guys!!!! You are going no where with this one.
Time to change the subject guys!!!! You are going no where with this one.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
anastrophe wrote: i guess when india built atomic bombs, *bombs* mind you, designed to kill innocent people, it had, uh, nothing at all to do with an 'arms race'. heavens to betsy no.
all peace loving people should protest india's refusal to disarm.
Yes, India is an equal partner to arms race. Like US it may have compulsions or policy matters but for a peace loving person it is not correct. I maintain that India should spend such money for improvement of the quality of life of its people.
I once again submit that disarming should be done on equal footing. If on equal terms India does not disarm then I will also join the protest.
all peace loving people should protest india's refusal to disarm.
Yes, India is an equal partner to arms race. Like US it may have compulsions or policy matters but for a peace loving person it is not correct. I maintain that India should spend such money for improvement of the quality of life of its people.
I once again submit that disarming should be done on equal footing. If on equal terms India does not disarm then I will also join the protest.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Lon wrote: SURESH & KENSLOFT
Time to change the subject guys!!!! You are going no where with this one.
Lon dear, I respect others' views even if they are not to my liking. The only thing one should avoid is strong reaction such as abuses.
Time to change the subject guys!!!! You are going no where with this one.
Lon dear, I respect others' views even if they are not to my liking. The only thing one should avoid is strong reaction such as abuses.
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: Lon dear, I respect others' views even if they are not to my liking. The only thing one should avoid is strong reaction such as abuses.
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
What does it mean?
What does it mean?
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: Under debate on "Formula F16: Can we trust Uncle Sam?", a Professor of Jawahar Lal Nehru University says that "No, the US is trying to trigger another dangerous arms spiral". In the conluding para he says, " how easily do we forget that it is the US itself that started and fuelled the arms race on the subcontinent and what it is doing now by providing the arms aphrodisiac to impotent leaders on both sides of the border is to trigger another dangerous arms spiral".
All peace loving people should protest.
A short few years ago you could have gotten arms from the Russians but that can't happen no more. Which subcontinent are we talking about here? How about if we only sell arms to the Pakistanis. Would that help you to stop the fantasies about the arms spiral? It would cetainly help to get rid of one of the parties involved in any escalation and then we wouldn't have to hear about how there is an aphrodisiac of war weapons. Is this implyng that the Americans are in love with war and creating wars between unsuspecting neighbours?
Suresh, you went on another thread and accused me of being abusive. It is not funny. Look at your signature. Why are you spreading hate? I've known lots of bullies who cried for peace because they were being pummelled. The answer was "I'm not stopping until I finished!"
All peace loving people should protest.
A short few years ago you could have gotten arms from the Russians but that can't happen no more. Which subcontinent are we talking about here? How about if we only sell arms to the Pakistanis. Would that help you to stop the fantasies about the arms spiral? It would cetainly help to get rid of one of the parties involved in any escalation and then we wouldn't have to hear about how there is an aphrodisiac of war weapons. Is this implyng that the Americans are in love with war and creating wars between unsuspecting neighbours?
Suresh, you went on another thread and accused me of being abusive. It is not funny. Look at your signature. Why are you spreading hate? I've known lots of bullies who cried for peace because they were being pummelled. The answer was "I'm not stopping until I finished!"
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: What does it mean?
It means that you are ridiculous.
It means that you are ridiculous.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: It means that you are ridiculous.
I am not ridiculous. I simply have a different opinion.
BTW calling me ridiculous is an abuse or praise from your standards? Can you show me if ever I called you by any such name?
I am not ridiculous. I simply have a different opinion.
BTW calling me ridiculous is an abuse or praise from your standards? Can you show me if ever I called you by any such name?
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Mr. Kensloft, you have been unduly harsh on me. Now you accuse me of spreading hate. I have tried to clarify my position but you are not ready to consider my feelings. You keep on using words which I am not able to treat as something other than abuse.I have posted views of some people of my country as to how they are looking at some actions taken by US administration and to what extent I agree with them. You have justified those actions as per your views and beliefs. I respect your views but am I wrong if I expect that others will also respect my views.
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: US or not, India is going to be a super power.
Hey Ken....Suresh has a point there. With their population and the current state of education in their country (not to mention ours) it's only a matter of time until they are major players on the world stage. I called a direct order mailhouse the other day, and got their headquarters in, you guessed it, India
We ought to be grooming friendship with them, not alienating them. .
And the neighbors you speak of wanting to be at peace with each other, that's not the radical Islamic terrorists of Pakistan's North now is it, Suresh. They could care less about being friends with India. But I'm assuming you are speaking of being friends with the US.
It is also going to happen. Sooner, if only self-proclaimed guardians of this world stop interfering.
Well, guardian is a good choice of words, but I wouldn't say the U.S. is "self-procalimed". As a matter of fact, we usually get called in by other countries to do the job. Like I said before, we are the strongest militarily, and so the job just kind of falls into our laps. You should know that most average Americans do not really like the fact that we are policing the world. We'd like it better if everyone could just get along and solve their differences themselves...but that doesn't seem to happen too often does it?
And to everyone who's been hammering poor Suresh, please remember that he is a member of a nation that is America's ally and has been for the last century or so. Let's don't get too emotional, it's just politics after all! :rolleyes:
Hey Ken....Suresh has a point there. With their population and the current state of education in their country (not to mention ours) it's only a matter of time until they are major players on the world stage. I called a direct order mailhouse the other day, and got their headquarters in, you guessed it, India
We ought to be grooming friendship with them, not alienating them. .
And the neighbors you speak of wanting to be at peace with each other, that's not the radical Islamic terrorists of Pakistan's North now is it, Suresh. They could care less about being friends with India. But I'm assuming you are speaking of being friends with the US.
It is also going to happen. Sooner, if only self-proclaimed guardians of this world stop interfering.
Well, guardian is a good choice of words, but I wouldn't say the U.S. is "self-procalimed". As a matter of fact, we usually get called in by other countries to do the job. Like I said before, we are the strongest militarily, and so the job just kind of falls into our laps. You should know that most average Americans do not really like the fact that we are policing the world. We'd like it better if everyone could just get along and solve their differences themselves...but that doesn't seem to happen too often does it?
And to everyone who's been hammering poor Suresh, please remember that he is a member of a nation that is America's ally and has been for the last century or so. Let's don't get too emotional, it's just politics after all! :rolleyes:
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: Mr. Kensloft, you have been unduly harsh on me. Now you accuse me of spreading hate. I have tried to clarify my position but you are not ready to consider my feelings. You keep on using words which I am not able to treat as something other than abuse.
Abuse is such a harsh word, let's just say that he is a staunch defender of his country and percieves that you have slandered it's name. Naturally, he'd speak up to protect the country he loves. Suresh, even I, a supporter of you, believe that you have some opinions that have been colored by various sources. America is neither as bad as you think it is, nor as good as I think it is. What causes so much emotion in this thread is America's ability to affect the world, for good or bad.
I have posted views of some people of my country as to how they are looking at some actions taken by US administration and to what extent I agree with them. You have justified those actions as per your views and beliefs. I respect your views but am I wrong if I expect that others will also respect my views.
Not at all! I respect your views, Suresh. You are obviously a very intelligent person. And mathematically, the fact that just one American respects your views negates your theory.
Respecting each other's views is not accepting them.
True! Perhaps I can get this thread back on track again.....
Suresh: What would you do about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world if you were the U.S.?
Kensloft: If you were India, how would you deal with Pakistan, a nation that continually fights you for Kashmir, has threatened to use Nukes in the past and seems to do nothing about the Islamic terrorists that stream across your border and kill trainloads of innocent women and children?
Abuse is such a harsh word, let's just say that he is a staunch defender of his country and percieves that you have slandered it's name. Naturally, he'd speak up to protect the country he loves. Suresh, even I, a supporter of you, believe that you have some opinions that have been colored by various sources. America is neither as bad as you think it is, nor as good as I think it is. What causes so much emotion in this thread is America's ability to affect the world, for good or bad.
I have posted views of some people of my country as to how they are looking at some actions taken by US administration and to what extent I agree with them. You have justified those actions as per your views and beliefs. I respect your views but am I wrong if I expect that others will also respect my views.
Not at all! I respect your views, Suresh. You are obviously a very intelligent person. And mathematically, the fact that just one American respects your views negates your theory.
Respecting each other's views is not accepting them.
True! Perhaps I can get this thread back on track again.....
Suresh: What would you do about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world if you were the U.S.?
Kensloft: If you were India, how would you deal with Pakistan, a nation that continually fights you for Kashmir, has threatened to use Nukes in the past and seems to do nothing about the Islamic terrorists that stream across your border and kill trainloads of innocent women and children?
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Double standards of Bush adminstration
posted by kensloft
A short few years ago you could have gotten arms from the Russians but that can't happen no more. Which subcontinent are we talking about here? How about if we only sell arms to the Pakistanis. Would that help you to stop the fantasies about the arms spiral? It would cetainly help to get rid of one of the parties involved in any escalation and then we wouldn't have to hear about how there is an aphrodisiac of war weapons. Is this implyng that the Americans are in love with war and creating wars between unsuspecting neighbours?
Suresh, you went on another thread and accused me of being abusive. It is not funny. Look at your signature. Why are you spreading hate? I've known lots of bullies who cried for peace because they were being pummelled. The answer was "I'm not stopping until I finished!"
Just to liven up the debate a little.
from reuters
http://reuters.myway.com/article/200503 ... SA-DC.html
The statement came after President Bush agreed to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan after a 15-year ban in a major policy shift, rewarding a key ally in the war on terrorism.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed "great disappointment" and said the move "could have negative consequences for India's security environment," said Sanjaya Baru, spokesman for the prime minister's office.
Nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan have fought three wars since 1947.
Analysts say U.S. sales of jet fighters to Pakistan and offers of arms to India will raise the temperature of rhetoric in South Asia but should not derail a slow-moving peace process.
Pakistan turned a blind eye to islamic terrorists there is a reasonable possiblility an extreme fundamentalist group can get power in Pakistan both India and Pakistan now have nuclear weapons aimed at each other looks like an arms race is about to start, pakistan gets F-16 India has to match with equivalent fighters if not american then it's a safe bet the europeans will happily sell them theirs.
especially the french.
from the same article
The Bush administration played down India's security concerns, and signaled a willingness to sell sophisticated fighters to India if it chooses to buy them, but made no firm commitments.
A U.S. official said India is contemplating a "very large" purchase of fighters, including U.S.-built F-16s and possibly F-18s.
Indian newspapers predicted India would get more than Pakistan.
"There was quiet satisfaction in New Delhi" hours after the United States agreed to sell F-16s to Pakistan, the Indian Express daily said.
"U.S. gives Pakistan F-16s, India gets F-16s plus plus."
If two nations want to fight is selling them clubs a good idea, especially if selling to both sides?
I don't necessarily agree with everything Suresh says but maybe he does have a point.
A short few years ago you could have gotten arms from the Russians but that can't happen no more. Which subcontinent are we talking about here? How about if we only sell arms to the Pakistanis. Would that help you to stop the fantasies about the arms spiral? It would cetainly help to get rid of one of the parties involved in any escalation and then we wouldn't have to hear about how there is an aphrodisiac of war weapons. Is this implyng that the Americans are in love with war and creating wars between unsuspecting neighbours?
Suresh, you went on another thread and accused me of being abusive. It is not funny. Look at your signature. Why are you spreading hate? I've known lots of bullies who cried for peace because they were being pummelled. The answer was "I'm not stopping until I finished!"
Just to liven up the debate a little.
from reuters
http://reuters.myway.com/article/200503 ... SA-DC.html
The statement came after President Bush agreed to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan after a 15-year ban in a major policy shift, rewarding a key ally in the war on terrorism.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed "great disappointment" and said the move "could have negative consequences for India's security environment," said Sanjaya Baru, spokesman for the prime minister's office.
Nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan have fought three wars since 1947.
Analysts say U.S. sales of jet fighters to Pakistan and offers of arms to India will raise the temperature of rhetoric in South Asia but should not derail a slow-moving peace process.
Pakistan turned a blind eye to islamic terrorists there is a reasonable possiblility an extreme fundamentalist group can get power in Pakistan both India and Pakistan now have nuclear weapons aimed at each other looks like an arms race is about to start, pakistan gets F-16 India has to match with equivalent fighters if not american then it's a safe bet the europeans will happily sell them theirs.
especially the french.
from the same article
The Bush administration played down India's security concerns, and signaled a willingness to sell sophisticated fighters to India if it chooses to buy them, but made no firm commitments.
A U.S. official said India is contemplating a "very large" purchase of fighters, including U.S.-built F-16s and possibly F-18s.
Indian newspapers predicted India would get more than Pakistan.
"There was quiet satisfaction in New Delhi" hours after the United States agreed to sell F-16s to Pakistan, the Indian Express daily said.
"U.S. gives Pakistan F-16s, India gets F-16s plus plus."
If two nations want to fight is selling them clubs a good idea, especially if selling to both sides?
I don't necessarily agree with everything Suresh says but maybe he does have a point.
Double standards of Bush adminstration
I'm agreeing with that sentiment. Well at least if both sides have F-16's the air battles will be fair. ??
Looking to the future....just where will the arms races end?
Looking to the future....just where will the arms races end?
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
gmc wrote:
If two nations want to fight is selling them clubs a good idea, especially if selling to both sides?
I don't necessarily agree with everything Suresh says but maybe he does have a point.
a different way to look at it is this: in virtually all conflicts, one side is the aggressor, and one side is the defender. if one side has military superiority, it will likely win the conflict. but what if the side with the military superiority is the aggressor? obviously, much depends upon the reasons for the aggression. but being armed in and of itself does not mean hostile intent. one can arm oneself to defend oneself. if we sell weapons to both sides, and the weapons are approximately equal in 'force', then it can be a brake on aggression, i.e., sic vis pacem, para bellum.
If two nations want to fight is selling them clubs a good idea, especially if selling to both sides?
I don't necessarily agree with everything Suresh says but maybe he does have a point.
a different way to look at it is this: in virtually all conflicts, one side is the aggressor, and one side is the defender. if one side has military superiority, it will likely win the conflict. but what if the side with the military superiority is the aggressor? obviously, much depends upon the reasons for the aggression. but being armed in and of itself does not mean hostile intent. one can arm oneself to defend oneself. if we sell weapons to both sides, and the weapons are approximately equal in 'force', then it can be a brake on aggression, i.e., sic vis pacem, para bellum.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh Gupta wrote: Mr. Kensloft, you have been unduly harsh on me. Now you accuse me of spreading hate. I have tried to clarify my position but you are not ready to consider my feelings. You keep on using words which I am not able to treat as something other than abuse.I have posted views of some people of my country as to how they are looking at some actions taken by US administration and to what extent I agree with them. You have justified those actions as per your views and beliefs. I respect your views but am I wrong if I expect that others will also respect my views.
First off! Let's remember that this is a forum and there is debate. I am not and do not like to see things that fall into personal because that has nothing to do with debate. As you know personal attacks do nothing but take from the issues at hand. One of the first tricks that is used in debate is to label an opposing voice often enough so tht those that hve not followed the debate will think that the opposing voice is the voice of unrighteousness stemming from the use of continuoslly claiming that he/she is, in this case, abusive.
You are under the impression that you are the vanguard and voice of the Indian people that has never been heard by North Americans. I am a Canadian and I have promulgated and continue to push for a multicultural society. The Canadian multicultural society is not made up of a token number of different peoples from different countries or cultures just so that we could claim to be multicultural.
I have worked and lived with East Indians for more years than I care to remember. In my mind it is not the colour of the skin but the worth of a man's/woman's ideas and ideals that tell me whether or not I want to be around them. You will note that I said 'she' because in our culture their worth is as much as that as any man. It has to do with the idea or ideal that is presented and not from whom it comes.
This, as I have said, is a forum for debate. I do not indulge in pm'ing people to come to my aid or defense. They come here of their own volition and speak their minds. If they say things that don't agree with what you are trying to construct as being the way that things are then it is, perhaps, because they don't like the reasoning that is being used to push your side of the issue. It has nothing to do with race or nationality other than what is in your head. Maybe the continual excuse of 'perhaps I haven't explained myself well enough for you to understand my viewpoint' is really denial of the facts that you are trying to portray as being the way that the real world is.
Suresh, you did not answer the question of why you went onto another thread and accused me of being abusive to you? This is another tact that is used in obfuscating an issue. Not responding to a direct question is detrimental to there being a real debate. In debate you respond to all the issues not just the one's that will make your side seem the better of the two.
First off! Let's remember that this is a forum and there is debate. I am not and do not like to see things that fall into personal because that has nothing to do with debate. As you know personal attacks do nothing but take from the issues at hand. One of the first tricks that is used in debate is to label an opposing voice often enough so tht those that hve not followed the debate will think that the opposing voice is the voice of unrighteousness stemming from the use of continuoslly claiming that he/she is, in this case, abusive.
You are under the impression that you are the vanguard and voice of the Indian people that has never been heard by North Americans. I am a Canadian and I have promulgated and continue to push for a multicultural society. The Canadian multicultural society is not made up of a token number of different peoples from different countries or cultures just so that we could claim to be multicultural.
I have worked and lived with East Indians for more years than I care to remember. In my mind it is not the colour of the skin but the worth of a man's/woman's ideas and ideals that tell me whether or not I want to be around them. You will note that I said 'she' because in our culture their worth is as much as that as any man. It has to do with the idea or ideal that is presented and not from whom it comes.
This, as I have said, is a forum for debate. I do not indulge in pm'ing people to come to my aid or defense. They come here of their own volition and speak their minds. If they say things that don't agree with what you are trying to construct as being the way that things are then it is, perhaps, because they don't like the reasoning that is being used to push your side of the issue. It has nothing to do with race or nationality other than what is in your head. Maybe the continual excuse of 'perhaps I haven't explained myself well enough for you to understand my viewpoint' is really denial of the facts that you are trying to portray as being the way that the real world is.
Suresh, you did not answer the question of why you went onto another thread and accused me of being abusive to you? This is another tact that is used in obfuscating an issue. Not responding to a direct question is detrimental to there being a real debate. In debate you respond to all the issues not just the one's that will make your side seem the better of the two.
Double standards of Bush adminstration
posted by anastrophe
a different way to look at it is this: in virtually all conflicts, one side is the aggressor, and one side is the defender. if one side has military superiority, it will likely win the conflict. but what if the side with the military superiority is the aggressor? obviously, much depends upon the reasons for the aggression. but being armed in and of itself does not mean hostile intent. one can arm oneself to defend oneself. if we sell weapons to both sides, and the weapons are approximately equal in 'force', then it can be a brake on aggression, i.e., sic vis pacem, para bellum.
Agree with you up to a point but it is not simple military superiority that ones rather the one with economic superiority that tends to win. (american civil war the south was mlitarily superior at the start but not economically, japan was superior to the US militarily to start with but not economically) India has a stronger economy than Pakistan and would probably win a long drawn out conflict, nuclear weapons change the scenario however, if they go to war in any serious way one or the other will probably use them, Pakistan to avert defeat or India to get the boot in before the Pakistanis. Flogging weapons to both sides is probably not helpful, Pakistan is not exactly a flowering democracy. Kind of thing the British used to do, divide and rule selling weapons to both sides and moralising from the sidelines.It's an act that will heighten tension, the only enemy Pakistan needs to worry about is India., they almost went to war fairly recently.
There seems to be some misunderstandings on this thread. May i point out Suresh is not writing in his native tongue and there is possibly a cultural difference in expression at play rather than a desire to wind people up. Course i could be talking a load of bollocks
a different way to look at it is this: in virtually all conflicts, one side is the aggressor, and one side is the defender. if one side has military superiority, it will likely win the conflict. but what if the side with the military superiority is the aggressor? obviously, much depends upon the reasons for the aggression. but being armed in and of itself does not mean hostile intent. one can arm oneself to defend oneself. if we sell weapons to both sides, and the weapons are approximately equal in 'force', then it can be a brake on aggression, i.e., sic vis pacem, para bellum.
Agree with you up to a point but it is not simple military superiority that ones rather the one with economic superiority that tends to win. (american civil war the south was mlitarily superior at the start but not economically, japan was superior to the US militarily to start with but not economically) India has a stronger economy than Pakistan and would probably win a long drawn out conflict, nuclear weapons change the scenario however, if they go to war in any serious way one or the other will probably use them, Pakistan to avert defeat or India to get the boot in before the Pakistanis. Flogging weapons to both sides is probably not helpful, Pakistan is not exactly a flowering democracy. Kind of thing the British used to do, divide and rule selling weapons to both sides and moralising from the sidelines.It's an act that will heighten tension, the only enemy Pakistan needs to worry about is India., they almost went to war fairly recently.
There seems to be some misunderstandings on this thread. May i point out Suresh is not writing in his native tongue and there is possibly a cultural difference in expression at play rather than a desire to wind people up. Course i could be talking a load of bollocks
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Good point GMC. and Kensloft..."obsfucating" nice vocabulary! Ok, so we all agree that weapon proliferation is probably not in anyone's interests. Good. Why does it continue to happen?
I'm thinking that therre are some powerful weapons manufacturing companies out there just looking for a war. Would they be above starting one? It seems to me that a certain "Lusitania" incident and a certain "Maine" indicident would say yes.
I'm thinking that therre are some powerful weapons manufacturing companies out there just looking for a war. Would they be above starting one? It seems to me that a certain "Lusitania" incident and a certain "Maine" indicident would say yes.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Jives wrote: Good point GMC. and Kensloft..."obsfucating" nice vocabulary! Ok, so we all agree that weapon proliferation is probably not in anyone's interests. Good. Why does it continue to happen?
I'm thinking that therre are some powerful weapons manufacturing companies out there just looking for a war. Would they be above starting one? It seems to me that a certain "Lusitania" incident and a certain "Maine" indicident would say yes.
I don't mind introducing the nuclear proliferation as being part of the double standard but have we yet resolved the initial statement concerning double standards that started this thread? You too have not replied to this query made some posts back. The initial statement is what it is all about. You have not, as of yet, replied to that.
Is the initial statement being set aside, so as not to be answered, under the guise of moving off to more important things that, in reality, have nothing to do with the thread starter's main intention?
To me it would be akin to the youth that went home and killed himself leaving you to ask why he did not answer you and that had he, perhaps, answered then he could, possibly, still be here today?
I'm thinking that therre are some powerful weapons manufacturing companies out there just looking for a war. Would they be above starting one? It seems to me that a certain "Lusitania" incident and a certain "Maine" indicident would say yes.
I don't mind introducing the nuclear proliferation as being part of the double standard but have we yet resolved the initial statement concerning double standards that started this thread? You too have not replied to this query made some posts back. The initial statement is what it is all about. You have not, as of yet, replied to that.
Is the initial statement being set aside, so as not to be answered, under the guise of moving off to more important things that, in reality, have nothing to do with the thread starter's main intention?
To me it would be akin to the youth that went home and killed himself leaving you to ask why he did not answer you and that had he, perhaps, answered then he could, possibly, still be here today?
Double standards of Bush adminstration
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/ ... ndust.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
To quote Eisenhower from his farewell address, see links above.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Written 46 years ago spookily prescient or relevant through all the ages?
If the Bush administration is guilty of double standards then I think you have to lay the same accusation on every government on the planet along with cynical manipulation of the facts and situations and hypocrisy. The US just happens to be the most powerfully militarily.
At least he is acting in what he believes are americas interest, you can argue the toss about whether he is right or not.
What is different about the Bush administration is that it will eventually answer to the electorate, they don't operate in isolation free to do what they want, you can fool all the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time.
What is different about today is the all pervasive media, however corrupt one country's media may or may not be there is no way to stop people looking elsewhere, that's why china wants to control the content of satellite television being beamed in-most of it's crap anyway (52 channels and nothing on thank you Bruce Springsteen I had noticed).
I'm not given to conspiracy theories I don't believe there is a secret group manipulating things in the background they are up front about what they are doing but ultimately even the biggest company has to pay taxes and get consent to operate. True they may control the WTO to the detriment of the third world but this is increasingly not aceptable to more and more people eventually things will change because in the long run short sighted policies don't work. (OK I could have put that better but hopefully you get my drift)
So is the Bush guilty of double standards and i would add hypocrisy Yes, but so is India, Pakistan, France, Russia etc etc.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
To quote Eisenhower from his farewell address, see links above.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Written 46 years ago spookily prescient or relevant through all the ages?
If the Bush administration is guilty of double standards then I think you have to lay the same accusation on every government on the planet along with cynical manipulation of the facts and situations and hypocrisy. The US just happens to be the most powerfully militarily.
At least he is acting in what he believes are americas interest, you can argue the toss about whether he is right or not.
What is different about the Bush administration is that it will eventually answer to the electorate, they don't operate in isolation free to do what they want, you can fool all the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time.
What is different about today is the all pervasive media, however corrupt one country's media may or may not be there is no way to stop people looking elsewhere, that's why china wants to control the content of satellite television being beamed in-most of it's crap anyway (52 channels and nothing on thank you Bruce Springsteen I had noticed).
I'm not given to conspiracy theories I don't believe there is a secret group manipulating things in the background they are up front about what they are doing but ultimately even the biggest company has to pay taxes and get consent to operate. True they may control the WTO to the detriment of the third world but this is increasingly not aceptable to more and more people eventually things will change because in the long run short sighted policies don't work. (OK I could have put that better but hopefully you get my drift)
So is the Bush guilty of double standards and i would add hypocrisy Yes, but so is India, Pakistan, France, Russia etc etc.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
kensloft wrote: First off! Let's remember that this is a forum and there is debate. I am not and do not like to see things that fall into personal because that has nothing to do with debate. As you know personal attacks do nothing but take from the issues at hand. One of the first tricks that is used in debate is to label an opposing voice often enough so tht those that hve not followed the debate will think that the opposing voice is the voice of unrighteousness stemming from the use of continuoslly claiming that he/she is, in this case, abusive.
What you have written is right. In fact, I have been telling you the same thing. Personal abuses are not a part of any debate. I do not know what you consider abusing but I consider the words you have used as abusing me. So why not post our opinion without indulging in personal attacks. Let us stick to the issues and not bring in personalities. Are you game on this?
You are under the impression that you are the vanguard and voice of the Indian people that has never been heard by North Americans. I am a Canadian and I have promulgated and continue to push for a multicultural society. The Canadian multicultural society is not made up of a token number of different peoples from different countries or cultures just so that we could claim to be multicultural.
I am not under any such impression. I have explained it many times.
I have worked and lived with East Indians for more years than I care to remember. In my mind it is not the colour of the skin but the worth of a man's/woman's ideas and ideals that tell me whether or not I want to be around them. You will note that I said 'she' because in our culture their worth is as much as that as any man. It has to do with the idea or ideal that is presented and not from whom it comes.
I have all respect for your ideals, beliefs, your love for your country and its multicultural society. I may not agree with some of your views but that does not lessen my respect for you.
This, as I have said, is a forum for debate. I do not indulge in pm'ing people to come to my aid or defense. They come here of their own volition and speak their minds. If they say things that don't agree with what you are trying to construct as being the way that things are then it is, perhaps, because they don't like the reasoning that is being used to push your side of the issue. It has nothing to do with race or nationality other than what is in your head. Maybe the continual excuse of 'perhaps I haven't explained myself well enough for you to understand my viewpoint' is really denial of the facts that you are trying to portray as being the way that the real world is.
I am not pushing anything and there is nothing to do with race or nationality in my head. Please don't read me wrong. I am simply expressing my individual opinion on an issue. And this opinion does not represent my opinion on other issues related to you or US administration policies. There are many policies of US administration which I view as very positive and in the interest of the world. Please allow me to have a different opinion if I feel that way about some policies.
Suresh, you did not answer the question of why you another thread and accused me of being abusive to you? This is another tawent onto ct that is used in obfuscating an issue. Not responding to a direct question is detrimental to there being a real debate. In debate you respond to all the issues not just the one's that will make your side seem the better of the two.
Let me answer your question. I did not accuse you of abusing me on this thread or another thread. I stated a fact. The words you have used, I consider them abusing.
I had asked you to point out if any such words I have used for you. I am still waiting for your answer.
What you have written is right. In fact, I have been telling you the same thing. Personal abuses are not a part of any debate. I do not know what you consider abusing but I consider the words you have used as abusing me. So why not post our opinion without indulging in personal attacks. Let us stick to the issues and not bring in personalities. Are you game on this?
You are under the impression that you are the vanguard and voice of the Indian people that has never been heard by North Americans. I am a Canadian and I have promulgated and continue to push for a multicultural society. The Canadian multicultural society is not made up of a token number of different peoples from different countries or cultures just so that we could claim to be multicultural.
I am not under any such impression. I have explained it many times.
I have worked and lived with East Indians for more years than I care to remember. In my mind it is not the colour of the skin but the worth of a man's/woman's ideas and ideals that tell me whether or not I want to be around them. You will note that I said 'she' because in our culture their worth is as much as that as any man. It has to do with the idea or ideal that is presented and not from whom it comes.
I have all respect for your ideals, beliefs, your love for your country and its multicultural society. I may not agree with some of your views but that does not lessen my respect for you.
This, as I have said, is a forum for debate. I do not indulge in pm'ing people to come to my aid or defense. They come here of their own volition and speak their minds. If they say things that don't agree with what you are trying to construct as being the way that things are then it is, perhaps, because they don't like the reasoning that is being used to push your side of the issue. It has nothing to do with race or nationality other than what is in your head. Maybe the continual excuse of 'perhaps I haven't explained myself well enough for you to understand my viewpoint' is really denial of the facts that you are trying to portray as being the way that the real world is.
I am not pushing anything and there is nothing to do with race or nationality in my head. Please don't read me wrong. I am simply expressing my individual opinion on an issue. And this opinion does not represent my opinion on other issues related to you or US administration policies. There are many policies of US administration which I view as very positive and in the interest of the world. Please allow me to have a different opinion if I feel that way about some policies.
Suresh, you did not answer the question of why you another thread and accused me of being abusive to you? This is another tawent onto ct that is used in obfuscating an issue. Not responding to a direct question is detrimental to there being a real debate. In debate you respond to all the issues not just the one's that will make your side seem the better of the two.
Let me answer your question. I did not accuse you of abusing me on this thread or another thread. I stated a fact. The words you have used, I consider them abusing.
I had asked you to point out if any such words I have used for you. I am still waiting for your answer.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
anastrophe wrote: a different way to look at it is this: in virtually all conflicts, one side is the aggressor, and one side is the defender. if one side has military superiority, it will likely win the conflict. but what if the side with the military superiority is the aggressor? obviously, much depends upon the reasons for the aggression. but being armed in and of itself does not mean hostile intent. one can arm oneself to defend oneself. if we sell weapons to both sides, and the weapons are approximately equal in 'force', then it can be a brake on aggression, i.e., sic vis pacem, para bellum.
Whatever way you look at it, the final result of selling arms is to keep manufacturers in huge profits. Selling arms to this party or the other party or to both parties does not make any difference.
Why countries need arms? Either to defend themselves or to attack others. In both these situations US should avoid selling arms to them. US is super power, the elder brother in the global family. What the elder brother should do if younger brothers display an urge for fighting? Should it give arms to both and then ask them to refrain from fighting or refuse to give them arms, ask them to behave and spend hard earned money to imprve the quality of life of their people? The answer to these questions is obvious.
The peace should be the goal. And the elder brother in the family has first responsibility. His working standards will motivate other family members.
Whatever way you look at it, the final result of selling arms is to keep manufacturers in huge profits. Selling arms to this party or the other party or to both parties does not make any difference.
Why countries need arms? Either to defend themselves or to attack others. In both these situations US should avoid selling arms to them. US is super power, the elder brother in the global family. What the elder brother should do if younger brothers display an urge for fighting? Should it give arms to both and then ask them to refrain from fighting or refuse to give them arms, ask them to behave and spend hard earned money to imprve the quality of life of their people? The answer to these questions is obvious.
The peace should be the goal. And the elder brother in the family has first responsibility. His working standards will motivate other family members.
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Jives wrote: I'm agreeing with that sentiment. Well at least if both sides have F-16's the air battles will be fair. ??
Looking to the future....just where will the arms races end?
Yes, I will also agree that if both countries have F-16s the air battle will be fair. But are we working for war or peace? Why arming them to have a fair battle? Why not refuse them arms and ask them to behave as responsible peace-loving members of the global family? Afterall US is the elder brother in the global family. If a little ear-twisting is required do it and avoid arms conflict now or in the future.
Looking to the future....just where will the arms races end?
Yes, I will also agree that if both countries have F-16s the air battle will be fair. But are we working for war or peace? Why arming them to have a fair battle? Why not refuse them arms and ask them to behave as responsible peace-loving members of the global family? Afterall US is the elder brother in the global family. If a little ear-twisting is required do it and avoid arms conflict now or in the future.
Double standards of Bush adminstration
Suresh, is it the actual US government that is selling the arms? or the companies that manufacture them? Your point is logical, so why is the illogical happening? 
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Double standards of Bush adminstration
It seems to me that the attitude with the arms race is...GREAT!...you go first. I've seen the movies. As soon as you put your weapon down they shoot you. :wah:
A percentage based reduction seems the only viable solution. Then it comes down to the final few missiles and everyone can stand by for 1...2...3...disarm! But then someone always has a spare bomb tucked in their sock.
A percentage based reduction seems the only viable solution. Then it comes down to the final few missiles and everyone can stand by for 1...2...3...disarm! But then someone always has a spare bomb tucked in their sock.