About Iraqi and American views on the various problems in Iraq. Page 4
|September 8th, 2006||#31|
| || |
Last edited by fingolfin361; September 8th, 2006 at 04:17..
|September 8th, 2006||#32|
| || |
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
|September 8th, 2006||#33|
| || |
No actually... the 1857 uprissing wasn't driven by democratic ideology. It was just an anti-British, relatively spontaneous event, which spread like wild fire, wherever there was dissatisfaction with the British. Most of the parties that fought the British (except the rebellious Sipahi's themselves) actually did so because their Lords/Monarchy figures had had enough with the British, not because the people wanted democracy. The Indians fighting Indians was again because the bulk of British forces were made up of Indians, and because the Lords/Monarchs of many Indians supported the British.
|September 8th, 2006||#34|
| || |
Hehe, fingolfin361, there are still some common knowledge from friends of the developping countries.
If you are of the Easter Turkistan Islamic Movement or other some similiar organization, hehe, few common idea we have. Maybe sports, I love sports.
About XiJiang and Tibet, just what I ever said, the information in our hands are so much different that we can not discuss it very clearly. "a soveriegn nation", Do you think XinJiang or XiZang was ever "a soveriegn nation" in history? Which year? What name? Which country ever admitted it?
"You simply took them by force and assimilated them into China with specious claims going back to time immemorial." Hehe, you are right. At least it is not bad compared with the way of American white to the local Indians in history.
But bulldogg, you are some radical. It's my feeling.
It's just an open bbs.
If you are of the Easter Turkistan Islamic Movement or other some organization, hehe , few common idea we have.
You always stick to "XinJiang" or "Tibet" just as I stick to oil, hehe.
Last edited by b2ee; September 8th, 2006 at 07:13..
|September 8th, 2006||#35|
| || |
Subash Chandler Bose... the 1st independant government... bloodshed between hindus and muslims that actually led to Britain pissing off in the first place... it wasn't Ghandi and the peaceful movement.
And B2ee Xinjiang and Tibet aside... what of the territory seized from India in the 1970's that WAS NEVER a part of China and is still occuppied to this day??
Korea and Vietnam were "small wars" educate yourself on the topic. Neither of those opposing forces faced the full might of the US military. The last countries to do that were Italy, Germany and Japan.
|September 8th, 2006||#36|
| || |
Do you mean McMahon Line? If so, I think it is a problem left by English. In the current situation, India and China both don't want to solve the problem in arm since the two countries is developing their economy actively. The territory is not the main problem now for the two countries.
Yes, answer your question. No, you think it is the Indian territory, but it is ambiguous actually.
If I believe our propaganda completely just as you only listen to your side, I would say it is our terittory,not indian's. But I say it is ambiguous.
In fact, English also left another tougher problem to India, Kashmir.
Hi, fingolfin361, Do you have any opinions about the two problems. I really wonder what you think?
Your logic is wrong. The US used its full might to Axis in WWII,but it is not tensible to conclude reversely that the only reason of the Axis failure is the US using full might.
It seems that you has already contributed WWII to the U.S completely. It is not correct. In my opinion, the role of D Day is exaggerated by many historians, ( but wait, I don't mean that the sacrifice of thousands of Allied soldiers is nothing, I repect them too). Many countries ever fought to Axis,including England,France,Soviet and many many.
About WWII, we even can open anther thread. Yes, in many areas of WWII,the U.S is the key power like the Pacific War, but the U.S was not everything in WWII.
Last edited by b2ee; September 8th, 2006 at 09:41..
|September 8th, 2006||#37|
| || |
Dollar for dollar, missile for missile, plane for plane right now, today, name me one country that can match the US?
The US was not everything but prior to the US entering the war how were the allies doing? France? England? China? Australia?
|September 8th, 2006||#38|
| || |
b2ee, your example of Korea is erroneous at best. There were four different groups in that war, North Korea, South Korea, China and the United Nations (Now that I have mentioned the UN once I will go back to saying the US rather than UN, it's a more accurate protrayal of what happened.). Three of those groups achieved their primary goals, China (maintain a buffer between Chinese communism and Capilizm), South Korea (force the Commies out of their country) and the United States (push the North Koreans out of South Korea) and but nobody completed their secondary objectives (Unite all of Korea under one government.) The only loser in that war was/still is the people of North Korea. They must suffer under a government that doesn't give a damn about them and only stays in power because it has the support of one other nation.
Please note that 98% of what I say is my opinion and/or my "version" of the facts. Most of what I say is rumor with little to no evidence to back it up, just something I picked up somewhere.
|September 8th, 2006||#39|
| || |
Ugh Subhash Chander Bose...well I'm not his biggest fan. I mean honestly, thinking he could actually gain independence by allying with the Japanese and Germany! I mean honestly, militarily their contribution wasn't really much, and he was a fool to think that the Japs wanted to free us! I mean when the occupied the Andamans Islands, they were worse than the Brits had ever been! Yea, coz Hitler and co. really wanted the best for the Indians!
Yea, and its sad how you cite ethnic bloodshed and the disgusting British pullout as a 'struggle for democracy'.
Yeah, well i have never been a fan of China's territorial claim policies, and honestly, find it a joke as to how they came up with the rational that after the British left that they suddenly wanted bits of India. But then again, i'm not informed enough about the Chinese opinion/propoganda, so i can't evaluate the claim as emphatically as I would like.
But practically speaking, the land claims are not major/important enough to amount to too much, i feel. Its more important for us to retain land, as it is a pride/sovereignity thing. I really can't see why China would still want the Arunachal Pradesh territiories today.
That said, I hope we can bring closure to these issues and work together in peace/co-operation. I have to admit though that in general we as a nation haven't got the China mistrust/phobia out of our psyches yet.
Last edited by fingolfin361; September 8th, 2006 at 18:44..
|September 9th, 2006||#40|
| || |
The Chinese claim that part of Kashmir was ceded to them by the Pakistani's in.... I want to say 1961 or there abouts, a move calculated by Pakistan to bring China into the Kashmir situation on Pakistan's side, since Pakistan couldn't stand up to the Indians alone they decided to try and bring in the only country in the world that could match up to India man to man, literally.