Iraqi and American views on the various problems in Iraq. - Page 4




 
--
 
September 8th, 2006  
fingolfin361
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
They became democracies as they were part of the British Empire, peopled by British citizens and their democratic institutions are a result of the fact they were British through and through hence I say that their democracies were a result of the British civil wars which established a democratic system in the motherland of England and then it was spread to their hoildings as a result of this unique relationship.
I was gonna say are you kiddin me to your presumtuous statement about all democrcies being a result of bloody revolutons, but then I see where you are going with the commonwealth thing. But anyway, in India, democracy wasnt achieved through a bloody revolution, nor was it just given by the British. Next time please dont make such sweeping statements without having the courtesy of asking if you are right.
NEXT!



Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
Doesn't that same thing apply to israel?
Oh you really did it now, touched a nerve or something. There's always an exception to the rule.
September 8th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fingolfin361
I was gonna say are you kiddin me to your presumtuous statement about all democrcies being a result of bloody revolutons, but then I see where you are going with the commonwealth thing. But anyway, in India, democracy wasnt achieved through a bloody revolution, nor was it just given by the British. Next time please dont make such sweeping statements without having the courtesy of asking if you are right.
NEXT!
Sepoy Mutiny anyone? Blood has always been spilled to achieve a democracy. And in the Sepoy mutiny there were Indians killing Indians. There were other incidents of bloody violence as India fought for its freedom and democracy. Yes or no?
September 8th, 2006  
fingolfin361
 
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  
b2ee
 
 
Hehe, fingolfin361, there are still some common knowledge from friends of the developping countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
b2ee, just how would one go around asking the Iraqi people if they wanted to be liberated in a country where the government controls all means of communication?
It's a good question. But from the Iraq's reponse,it is easy to justify that they don't like Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maytime
Is it standard operating precedure for the opressor to hand over the country back to the opressed? Don't answer.
Hehe,very interesting. Every explaination has its own logic. I don't answer,of cause.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
Its a simple statement of fact. Look at the numbers and tell me one country that can stand up o the might of the US military? Go on, prove me wrong. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath while I wait.
Stand up to the US's might? Do you mean those to resist Americans successfully?Eaaaaaaasy, 1950's Korea,1970's Vietnam,though there were China's support behind them. Wait,wait, I don't set up any opposed feeling now.
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.
September 8th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
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  
b2ee
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
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??
.
Look, the enviroment becomes moderate now.

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
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.
small wars? Full might of the US? Win is win,lose is lose. At that time,China also not used its full might. Hehe, I don't mean China is equal to the U.S. I admit that the US is the only super country in the world.

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.
September 8th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
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  
Damien435
 
 
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.
September 8th, 2006  
fingolfin361
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
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.

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'.




Quote:
Originally Posted by b2ee
Look, the enviroment becomes moderate now.

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?

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.
September 9th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
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.
 


Similar Topics
An Army of some (Part One)
U.S., Citing Abuse in Iraqi Prisons, Holds Detainees
New Rules In Iraq May Make It Tougher To Keep Insurgents
A must read article on Iraq
Shaking hands with Sadam Hussein