PDA

View Full Version : South-east Asia: Indo-Chinese Flashpoint?



Rani Lakshmibai
11 Jun 05,, 05:07
Okay, the importance of the Malacca Straits cannot be overemphasized, 600 ships pass through it everyday, twice the number of ships that pass through the Suez Canal and three times and Panama Canal. 20% of the world's oil supply passes through there.

China has established rapport with just about every country in South-east Asia and has military pacts with many of them. In fact, a Chinese facility in Myanmar was built to track India's cruise/ballistic missile development in Orissa. India has finally woken up to threat (goddamn politicians to busy fighting to do a damn thing) and has developed the 'Look East' policy though it's too little, too late in my opinion.

In fact, this can be used to highlight the broader issue of how the Chinese are outflanking us from every direction in preparation for future conflict. They know we are the only nation that poses significant threat to them in Asia in the event of a conflict.

Does anybody know if India has taken any concrete steps to counter China? Acquire bases in South-east Asia; that is if there are any countries left that aren't hostile to us and have military pacts with China? What do you guys think of establishing bases in Mongolia or former Soviet bloc nations that border China, assuming however that they don't have good relations with China?

And another thing, why are the bloody Chinese hostile to begin with? We helped them get permanent seats in the UN, Hindi-chini bhai bhai, my God, I knew Nehru was a moron but how could a man his age be so naive? I'd like nothing more than to live in peace with them, damn it, I have so many friends of Chinese origin here in Toronto, Canada, but in Asia the situation is different. It's the bloody the communists, nutcases suppressing the country and throwing political dissenters into labour camps, blocking information, carrying out cultural and human genocide in Tibet etc.

Maybe India should fund anti-communist groups in China, help overthrow the communists and then setup a democratic government that will allow both India and China to live in peace.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 05,, 05:11
Okay, the importance of the Malacca Straits cannot be overemphasized, 600 ships pass through it everyday, twice the number of ships that pass through the Suez Canal and three times and Panama Canal. 20% of the world's oil supply passes through there.

China has established rapport with just about every country in South-east Asia and has military pacts with many of them. In fact, a Chinese facility in Myanmar was built to track India's cruise/ballistic missile development in Orissa. India has finally woken up to threat (goddamn politicians to busy fighting to do a damn thing) and has developed the 'Look East' policy though it's too little, too late in my opinion.

In fact, this can be used to highlight the broader issue of how the Chinese are outflanking us from every direction in preparation for future conflict. They know we are the only nation that poses significant threat to them in Asia in the event of a conflict.

Does anybody know if India has taken any concrete steps to counter China? Acquire bases in South-east Asia; that is if there are any countries left that aren't hostile to us and have military pacts with China? What do you guys think of establishing bases in Mongolia or former Soviet bloc nations that border China, assuming however that they don't have good relations with China?
You're overstretching. The Indian Ocean is an American lake. In fact, in all Chinese writings, they would rely on the USN and the RN if India would try to intercept Chinese shipping (Freedom of the Seas).

And India doesn't exactly have very friendly relations with the Asia -Stans, at least not to the point of bases. Check the Shanghai Five Accords to see the Chinese are already ahead of India in that direction.

Rani Lakshmibai
11 Jun 05,, 05:21
I know that India keeps at an arms length from America despite all the propaganda about India and American being allies and all, but what makes you think that America will take China's side if it should come down to war? By the way, I'm assuming that India will not initiate the war i.e. that it will be looking to keep peace in Asia.

The isolationist crap was very idealistic and yes, we are distant from most Asian states politically and diplomatically. What I'm wondering is if anything has changed, if India actually has developed any solid relationships with other nations in Asia or if there are any indications of that happening. For example, the Indian Navy just provided spares for the Vietnamese navy but I read the Vietnam and China agreed to jointly explore oil or something like that so I doubt the Vietnamese will be particularly pro-Indian.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 05,, 05:32
It's not that the Americans and the Brits are taking China's side. They're enforcing Freedom of the Seas. The PLAN is not in a position to come into the IO to challenge the InN but the InN is in a position to cut Chinese oil supplies by sea. Thus, for the Chinese, they would rely on the USN and the RN to keep the sealanes open.

SH5 is an anti-terrorist agreement. I doubt that any actual military alliance would spring out of that.

In any situation, the two countries would be restricted to a border war between the two.

Rani Lakshmibai
11 Jun 05,, 05:38
It's not that the Americans and the Brits are taking China's side. They're enforcing Freedom of the Seas. The PLAN is not in a position to come into the IO to challenge the InN but the InN is in a position to cut Chinese oil supplies by sea. Thus, for the Chinese, they would rely on the USN and the RN to keep the sealanes open.

I don't know, as of now, I thought it was most likely that the American-Chinese standoff over Taiwan would be what ignited the war. In which case America would be only too glad to have India block Chinese oil supplies coming through the Malacca Straits.



SH5 is an anti-terrorist agreement. I doubt that any actual military alliance would spring out of that.

SH5? Are you referring to the agreement between Vietnam and China? Are the Vietnamese wary of the Chinese?

hammer
11 Jun 05,, 05:41
SH5? Are you referring to the agreement between Vietnam and China? Are the Vietnamese wary of the Chinese?
No, he meant Shanghai 5 (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 05,, 05:47
I don't know, as of now, I thought it was most likely that the American-Chinese standoff over Taiwan would be what ignited the war. In which case America would be only too glad to have India block Chinese oil supplies coming through the Malacca Straits.

You're overstretching again. The last thing the Chinese would be worrying about in a TW conflict is what's happenning in the IO. By definition of any USN action off TW, that would be an automatic blockade. They don't need the InN, although they might welcome India's flag although I don't know if India would be so willing to give it.

Rani Lakshmibai
11 Jun 05,, 05:53
Yep, you are right about that, unless it becomes all out war, though that is unlikely.

Moving back to the original topic Colonel, do you know if India has brokered any military deals with foreign nations, I heard that we had military bases somewhere in Central Asia but that sounds stupid to me, the Chinese wouldn't have allowed that.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 05,, 06:55
India does not have a permenant presence outside her national territories. However, there are agreements to provide troops in case of natural disasters or a common enemy, chiefly amongst these countries are Nepal and Iran.

And you're over-estimating Chinese influence. It's on par with India which is to say not very much.

hammer
11 Jun 05,, 06:56
Yep, you are right about that, unless it becomes all out war, though that is unlikely.

Moving back to the original topic Colonel, do you know if India has brokered any military deals with foreign nations, I heard that we had military bases somewhere in Central Asia but that sounds stupid to me, the Chinese wouldn't have allowed that.

We have an air base in Tajikistan IIRC.

bull
11 Jun 05,, 07:09
India does not have a permenant presence outside her national territories. However, there are agreements to provide troops in case of natural disasters or a common enemy, chiefly amongst these countries are Nepal and Iran.

And you're over-estimating Chinese influence. It's on par with India which is to say not very much.

we have a airbase in tajikstan which repotedly was suppose tohave mig 29s.

Rani Lakshmibai
11 Jun 05,, 08:10
But isn't Tajikistan a part of the Shanhai Five? Not particularly pro-India.


And you're over-estimating Chinese influence. It's on par with India which is to say not very much.

Why is that? I mean to have a 'string of pearls' line of ports and bases all through the South-east, a port in Gwador, Pakistan and a military pact with Bangladesh makes me think that India is pretty much surrounded by China! And that's not even including talk of bases on Africa's East Coast that completely outclasses us. That's a lot of bases for a country that doesn't have much in the way of influence.

hammer
11 Jun 05,, 08:18
But isn't Tajikistan a part of the Shanhai Five? Not particularly pro-India.


Shangai Five is not against India !! whatever made you think that its a coalition against India ? India has very close relations with Tajikistan.

IAF's base in Tajikistan will be ready by '04 (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/869687.cms)

India has mil base in Tajikistan (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-8-2002_pg4_1)

Rani Lakshmibai
11 Jun 05,, 08:35
Okay, forgive me it is 3:30 AM where I am typing this up, so obviously I must be on drugs or something to sit up this late. I may be imagining it, but it seems that you (Hammer) keep sending in posts even though you are shown as being offline :).

Anyhow, care to tell me more about Tajikistan? I know that it seems to be exporting bases to everyone in existence including the Russians and Americans and probably the Chinese for all I know. Tell me more about the SH5, is it an economic or military co-operative?

And China does not make economic/military pacts that help India. If China's in the SH5, then it's anti-India (meaning that China's gonna try its level best to make sure it prospers while India doesn't within the limits of the treaty).

hammer
11 Jun 05,, 08:44
Anyhow, care to tell me more about Tajikistan? I know that it seems to be exporting bases to everyone in existence including the Russians and Americans and probably the Chinese for all I know.
AFAIK only Russia and India have permanent military bases over there.



Tell me more about the SH5, is it an economic or military co-operative?




The Shanghai Five group will expand its agenda to cover the fight against terrorism, economic ties and humanitarian issues, it was announced here today at the end of a one-day meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the member-states.

Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, who form the Shanghai Five, will sign a treaty on joint struggle against terrorism, separatism and extremism during their coming summit in Shanghai in July, Russia's Foreign Minister, Mr. Igor Ivanov, told reporters after today's meeting.

This will be a major step forward for the Shanghai Five, which was initially set up five years ago to boost border security and reduce troop levels along China's frontiers with the former Soviet republics.

link (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/04/29/stories/03290007.htm)

Rani Lakshmibai
11 Jun 05,, 08:44
And look at this, it's from October 2002 so I don't know how accurate it is:

Indian military base in Tajikistan denied


Moscow Oct. 3. Tajikistan has denied the presence of any Indian military base in this former Soviet Central Asian Republic. ``The defence ministries of the two countries have actually signed a number of agreements on military and military-technical co-operation, but they do not contain any provisions for the deployment of Indian military personnel or construction of an Indian military base,'' the Tajik Defence Ministry spokesman, Zarubiddin Sirojev, was quoted as saying by Itar-Tass.

Such reports are being circulated by the media, acting ``on the orders of certain forces,'' Mr. Sirojev said in an obvious reference to the Pakistani ISI.

He said that as part of the international anti-terror coalition Dushanbe has provided its air space and some of its civilian airports for humanitarian operations in neighbouring Afghanistan. According to the earlier Russian media reports during the Defence Minister, George Fernandes' Dushanbe visit, India had agreed to reconstruct the former Soviet airbase of Aini in the suburbs of the Tajik capital. ó PTI

hammer
11 Jun 05,, 08:59
And look at this, it's from October 2002 so I don't know how accurate it is:

Indian military base in Tajikistan denied


Moscow Oct. 3. Tajikistan has denied the presence of any Indian military base in this former Soviet Central Asian Republic. ``The defence ministries of the two countries have actually signed a number of agreements on military and military-technical co-operation, but they do not contain any provisions for the deployment of Indian military personnel or construction of an Indian military base,'' the Tajik Defence Ministry spokesman, Zarubiddin Sirojev, was quoted as saying by Itar-Tass.

Such reports are being circulated by the media, acting ``on the orders of certain forces,'' Mr. Sirojev said in an obvious reference to the Pakistani ISI.

He said that as part of the international anti-terror coalition Dushanbe has provided its air space and some of its civilian airports for humanitarian operations in neighbouring Afghanistan. According to the earlier Russian media reports during the Defence Minister, George Fernandes' Dushanbe visit, India had agreed to reconstruct the former Soviet airbase of Aini in the suburbs of the Tajik capital. ó PTI

This link is a recent one .

IAF's base in Tajikistan will be ready by '04 (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/869687.cms)

Rani Lakshmibai
11 Jun 05,, 09:11
Nice. For once our politicians managed to do something right.

Okay then, back to the South-east Asian region. Any luck there? Today's TOI had an article that said that a Malaysian Prince is serving in our Army. Actually, he is the only foriegner in the Indian Armed Forces. Maybe Malaysia then? Maybe not, I heard it had some pact with China.

Indonesia considered China a hostile threat until recently... but I think the Chinese got to them first. Myanmar is anxious to have an oil pipeline for India built through their property... but they have a Chinese base already. Incidentally, that's the base that the Chinese are using to gather data on the Agnis, Prithvis and Trishuls.

That pretty much leaves on Japan or South Korea and both prefer to defended by America though Japan and India recently launched a strategic 'partnership'. I suspect it will be a few decades before I figure out what they mean by 'partnership'.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 05,, 13:36
I wouldn't call Tajikistan's detachment a base. It's a detachment, not a base. A base allows you to carry out independent military operations. This has the feel that the Tajiks has a yay or nay say in any military operations and most likely the logistical support (ie, the Tajiks pay for) from them.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 05,, 13:45
Rani,

You're overstretching things by a country mile. Every one of those countries you've mention got good and bad relationship points with both China and India. It does not mean that any of them are going to jump into bed with either one of them soon, especially when they don't need to.

The US continues to be the dominant player in these regions. The decision is whether or not to jump into bed with the US and both India and China could not even come close to what the US has to offer.

The Indian military has openned up to exchanges alot more lately, which I clearly welcomes. I've learned alot of little things and gotten a few big surprises on how they approach battle and obviously they us. So, these exchanges ain't nothing to base your hopes on the world giving India a military thumbs up.

Neo
11 Jun 05,, 15:17
Indian Ocean is dominated by US presence..huge bases in Diego Garcia and ME.
To my opinion Chinese influence will bring some stability there...

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 05,, 15:20
At best, the string of pearles are surveillance bases. None of them could be considered staging areas for any kind of force.

Rani Lakshmibai
11 Jun 05,, 23:31
It doesn't take much to go from a surveillance base to a military base as compared to the gap between no base to a surveillance base.

The US is currently dominant but it is my belief that its dominance has reached its peak and that their influence has already begun to diminish. Not by any quantifiable amount, but a good indication of their diminishing strength is the fact that China is posing and will pose a significant threat to them, but as yet they have taken little to counter it except funding democracy groups and carry out surveillance and actions of that sort. In short they haven't done the usual thing that they would to threats - try and topple the government or invade (Venezuela, Iraq etc.). This situation reminds me of the Soviets - the US had to be very careful where they trode with respect to them.

This is partly because China is huge and not to be played around with. But I see China rising and its influence rising with them with the US growth rate and influence not rising at a similar rate. Projecting 60-100 years into the future, barring any catastrophes for the Communists, China is most likely to be the dominant superpower. The only thing China has to be careful about is to remember that they aren't the American's equal quite yet and not provoke any war with them with them in the near to intermediate future. This is why India has to take aggressive action to ensure that we overtake the Chinese economically, politically and militarily.

troung
12 Jun 05,, 06:55
What people seem to be leaving off is the nations that are right in Malacca... Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia...

None of them are lock step friends of China or India. They have moved close to China because China can and is offering them stuff. And Burma is so close to China because China arms their military. The Burmese military is equipped with Chinese weapons top to bottom. Indonesia has warmed up to China but not anywhere close to say a Burma or Pakistan.

None of them would like to see Indian or Chinese warships in their waters patrolling.

And not one of them would like a fight in their waters between China or India. Singapore's economy relies on stability so hell makes them pretty likely to be rather aggressive if India and China start to shoot at each other off their coast.

And America, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea would not like naval battles breaking out there either.

Might as well forget the Tom Clancy stuff... India and China will not all of a sudden fight it out there as if either one of them actually own the area...

indianguy4u
12 Jun 05,, 07:49
India or China is not interested in fights on the seas, land or the air. Both nations have too much to loose going to war, but that doesn't mean not preparing for the same.

lemontree
12 Jun 05,, 13:54
It doesn't take much to go from a surveillance base to a military base as compared to the gap between no base to a surveillance base.

The "string of pearls" are of no use if they don't aid in completing the mission objective.
For instance Coco islands can be neutralised. It is a listening post, but I wonder what do they listen to Radio Bangladesh, or AIR Calcutta.. :biggrin:
We Indians don't need to worry much, but the issue is being addressed

bull
12 Jun 05,, 13:58
It doesn't take much to go from a surveillance base to a military base as compared to the gap between no base to a surveillance base.

The US is currently dominant but it is my belief that its dominance has reached its peak and that their influence has already begun to diminish. Not by any quantifiable amount, but a good indication of their diminishing strength is the fact that China is posing and will pose a significant threat to them, but as yet they have taken little to counter it except funding democracy groups and carry out surveillance and actions of that sort. In short they haven't done the usual thing that they would to threats - try and topple the government or invade (Venezuela, Iraq etc.). This situation reminds me of the Soviets - the US had to be very careful where they trode with respect to them.

This is partly because China is huge and not to be played around with. But I see China rising and its influence rising with them with the US growth rate and influence not rising at a similar rate. Projecting 60-100 years into the future, barring any catastrophes for the Communists, China is most likely to be the dominant superpower. The only thing China has to be careful about is to remember that they aren't the American's equal quite yet and not provoke any war with them with them in the near to intermediate future. This is why India has to take aggressive action to ensure that we overtake the Chinese economically, politically and militarily.

Rani dear,
err sorry i like to think as if you are female... :rolleyes:

Ok any way coming back to the topic.Its not that easy as you say, a surveilance post can have few service men over there with a radars to have alook out but for it to be a full fledged base the amount of money and equipment requirewd is huge.The supply lines have to be stable and the strength of the base also have to be good nough,otherwise on break out of hostlities they will be totally stranded/over run.

Ray
12 Jun 05,, 17:52
There is a considerable overseas Chinese presence in the littoral states.

The Chinese manage the economy in Malaysia as also in Singapore. That means a lot, if you know what I mean. ;)

bull
13 Jun 05,, 06:35
There is a considerable overseas Chinese presence in the littoral states.

The Chinese manage the economy in Malaysia as also in Singapore. That means a lot, if you know what I mean. ;)

Chineese manage???U mean chineese born professionals manage?

Jay
13 Jun 05,, 09:53
There is a considerable overseas Chinese presence in the littoral states.

The Chinese manage the economy in Malaysia as also in Singapore. That means a lot, if you know what I mean. ;)

True, but Singaporean Chinese are not that warm with the mother land..IIRC. Singapore in recent years has been getting close to India, in military terms. Frequent trainings, frequent port calls etc etc and I guess Singapore is not exactly welcoming a strong China.

In Malaysia its totally different, Malays rule both ethnic Chinese and Indians. There is a strict sense of nationalism in Malaysia, so I doubt they will side with Chinese.

Jay
13 Jun 05,, 09:56
It doesn't take much to go from a surveillance base to a military base as compared to the gap between no base to a surveillance base.
Really?? Setting up a few radio posts is a lot different from building up infrastrcuture to base your men, submarines and ships.


The US is currently dominant but it is my belief that its dominance has reached its peak and that their influence has already begun to diminish. Not by any quantifiable amount, but a good indication of their diminishing strength is the fact that China is posing and will pose a significant threat to them,
No, not even the Chinese will believe your story, they are much more realistic.


Projecting 60-100 years into the future, barring any catastrophes for the Communists, China is most likely to be the dominant superpower.
thats pure wishful thinking. If you believe the communists, the manin security for china is not from the outside but inside.


This is why India has to take aggressive action to ensure that we overtake the Chinese economically, politically and militarily.
We dont need to, tit for tat will not take India anywhere but will ruin it.

Rani Lakshmibai
13 Jun 05,, 17:57
Really?? Setting up a few radio posts is a lot different from building up infrastrcuture to base your men, submarines and ships.

I was not referring to the economic or logistical cost of setting up bases. What I was referring to was the fact that China has a 'string of pearl' bases throughout the Southest. This means that the countries where these bases are located have already begun to lean toward China in diplomatic and military terms. That necessarily means that these countries won't give India bases there, and even if they did, it would be rather stupid what with the men from the Chinese and Indian bases eyeballing each other and making threatening gestures and listening in on conversations, figuratively if not literally. And I would question the diplomatic loyalty the said nation.

And given the rate at which Chinese military expenditure is shooting up, I would not think that they could not afford to convert these surveillance bases into forward bases in the next 20-50 years - which is when they matter. It doesn't matter if they aren't forward bases now, there is no need for them now. But if you establish a foothold in each of these countries, you have already aligned these nations in your favour. How much more persuading will it take to make these nations allow full fledged Chinese military bases?

On the other hand, how much diplomatic work will India have to cover in order to make the above nations fall back on the diplomatic forward momemtum that they have with China? Enough to make them remove Chinese bases and replace it with Indian ones? Highly unlikely.

In short ask yourselves this, how many Southeast Asian nations have allowed Chinese surveillance bases on their soil? Now ask yourself how many Southeast Asian nations have allowed India to establish minor, non-forward, petty surveillance-only bases on their soil? Do you see what I mean? India has already fallen behind in diplomatic and economic (at home) terms.


thats pure wishful thinking. If you believe the communists, the manin security for china is not from the outside but inside.

The security threats at home, despite being substantial, don't pose a long term threat that they don't have full control over , i.e. the Chinese have to worry about us not only today but (hopefully) 100-200 years from now and they don't have a reliable means of control over us.

The local anti-communist threats are in the intermediate term and don't ride T-90 tanks into battle. I admit they are substantial, but if China follows an expansionist strategy, it doesn't matter if the communists or some other government (even democratic) is in power, sooner or later conflict with India is inevitable. That is if they follow an expansionist policy. But face it, China (and India) is a proud nation and they will almost certainly follow such an agenda.


We dont need to, tit for tat will not take India anywhere but will ruin it.

Yes, we aren't economically strong enough to withstand this kind of competition, but we must at least make some effort to not have other countries fall into China's open and waiting hands.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jun 05,, 20:43
Rani,

The CIA had listenning posts and radar observation posts in China during the 80s. They're no longer there now.

The Soviets and Russians had been aiding and training the Indian military for decades, including some permenant stationing of advisors in India. Anytime soon a Russian flag is going over an airstrip or a port?

China aided Vietnam during the American Vietnam War, including rotating over 300,000 troops through that country. The SAM and AAA belt around Hanoi was in fact a PLAAF responsibility. Where in Vietnam are the PLA bases now?

Franco Lolan
13 Jun 05,, 23:57
Rani,

The CIA had listenning posts and radar observation posts in China during the 80s. They're no longer there now.


Never knew that. Do you have links? What happened to them?

Officer of Engineers
14 Jun 05,, 04:07
IISS and RAND don't put their annual reports on the web but the reference is in there during those 10 years. You're invited to check them out but I'm not going to read through 30 volumes looking for the reference.

This was during the Cold War after Deng Xia Peng came into power. There were all sorts of Sino-American co-operation back then, including intel sharing over the Soviets and their allies. The Chinese acted as midway men in shipping HERCULES SAMs to Iran and on American request, supplied the Afghan mujahadeen with SA-7 MANPAD before the Americans provided STINGERs.

The CIA base was there to monitor the Soviets. I don't think anything big came out of there but alot of vital little things such as monitoring of their communications frequencies. After the collapse of the USSR, those bases lost their functions as there was nothing more to monitor and hence were closed down.

Rani Lakshmibai
14 Jun 05,, 04:37
The CIA had listenning posts and radar observation posts in China during the 80s. They're no longer there now.

The Soviets and Russians had been aiding and training the Indian military for decades, including some permenant stationing of advisors in India. Anytime soon a Russian flag is going over an airstrip or a port?

China aided Vietnam during the American Vietnam War, including rotating over 300,000 troops through that country. The SAM and AAA belt around Hanoi was in fact a PLAAF responsibility. Where in Vietnam are the PLA bases now?


What is your point? The Americans had bases in France, Germany, Japan and several other countries at the end of WW II. They lost the French bases but guess what? Sixty years, that's 60, count 'em, the US still have the bases in Germany and Japan.

Japan might be a bit afraid of China but what of Germany? Who are the Americans protecting the poor Germans from? They took advantage of the situation and took out a lease on the land, probably a 99-year lease and they've been there ever since.

You establish as many bases as possible in as many countries as possible and of course, some of them might close down but hopefully others will still go on, and still be active when you need them....

....And that's strategy.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jun 05,, 04:44
My point, since you failed to grasp it, is that you cannot predict the future. And let's be real here. The US CONQUERED GERMANY AND JAPAN. That's how they got their bases and that's how they're keeping their bases - originally through the terms of surrender and then through the alliances that the US set up on American terms.

troung
14 Jun 05,, 04:51
It doesn't matter if they aren't forward bases now, there is no need for them now. But if you establish a foothold in each of these countries, you have already aligned these nations in your favour. How much more persuading will it take to make these nations allow full fledged Chinese military bases?

I think you overate India and China and under rate SE Asia...

I doubt India is able to do like the USA and give away billions in exhange for bases much less have the clout to convince people to let them use said bases in a war. Plus India doesn't have the domestic clout in the Philippines and Thailand that India coudl ever hope to have...

India is not the USA... do you think the Philippines would jump through hoops and let India use Clark Field to bomb Hainian... hell they stoped letting the USA, which paid billions, use their bases...

Indonesia will not be handing over things to either nation... neither would Malaysia...

Thailand and Burma are already friendly with China and Vietnam/Laos and China are moving closer as the days go on...

So what all of a sudden India will convice them to go to war with China?

Jay
14 Jun 05,, 04:58
Not to mention that India let CIA to have listening posts near Indo-Tibetean ranges to monitor Chinese activities after their take over of Tibet.

Does it mean USA had a base in India or soon there is going to be one??

India is strictly a regional power and it acts like one. Your thots of making India the ruling power from Arabia to Japan is not going to happen any time soon and there are no takers for this idea.

bull
14 Jun 05,, 06:30
Without having a proper blue water navy all these bases/listening potss will be of no use.They are far away from having one.Today the SE asian countries look to USN and IN for patrolling the mallaca straits.

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 03:41
I think you are all missing the point. In the present India does not have the clout to ask any country in South-east to help us out.

I'm looking into the future at a time when American power has declined in comparison to Chinese and Indian influence. This time lies roughly a 60-100 years or more in future.

And don't tell me that American strength will continue hold the world in sway at that point in time as that is highly unlikely.

The points I suggested were to be used in order to develop good relationships with these countries for this time when it might be useful. And I believe that I said that India appears to have fallen behind in this diplomatic warfare.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 03:46
Right. That's about the time the New Dehli Golfers will win the Stanley Cup.

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 03:57
You have some conclusive proof that America will hold power 100 years in the future? If so, please share it with us.

I base my belief on the dominance of China and India in the future on their larger populations which are now rapidly acquiring wealth. If the populations of either country should achieve a level of wealth even half that of the general American population, then both countries are already economically stronger than America. And barring any catastrophes and allowing for a stable economic environment, it is not inconcievable that this can be accomplished within 100 years. Actually, models say 70 years but I will allow more time to take into account the effect of unforseen events which may hinder these economies.

Unless America takes active military or financial steps to push China and India into decay, I cannot see America holding the throne of power in the future.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 04:18
Mongols in the case of China. Muhgals in case of India.

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 04:29
Given the steadily falling condition of the American economy, declining moral standards, and rising opponent nations, I would wonder what way or combination of ways will cause the collapse of America, instead of thinking that either the Mongols or the Mughals pose some threat to China and India today, if I were you.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 04:34
What a load of horse crap! There are over 100,000 Americans in Iraq with declining moral standards! Rising oppenants? Son, I stood guard at the Fulda Gap against a real monster. China and India COMBINED TODAY doesn't even come close to the USSR and the Americans are MUCH further ahead today.

If I were you, I look at men and women who gave their word to their country and who kept their word to their country. And their country made sure that they're the best there ever was on this world.

Obviously, you are too damned young to understand the historic and cultural aspects of my posts, so I will spell it out for you. The Americans are young and hungry. Neither India nor China is that young and let's face it, not that hungry.

Blademaster
15 Jun 05,, 04:53
Obviously, you are too damned young to understand the historic and cultural aspects of my posts, so I will spell it out for you. The Americans are young and hungry. Neither India nor China is that young and let's face it, not that hungry.

Well sorry but I gotta say ********! India is young and hungry. I've been to India and seen the attitudes.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 05:12
I don't see it, BM, at least not on the scale like the Americans, at least not united like the Americans. The Americans are united (more in image than reality) to spread the vision of democrazy in the Middle East, a task greater than the race to the moon. India thinks the US has bitten more off than it can chew. So, who's really hungry?

And let's really face it, India ain't that young. (I know as a country and as a government, it is that young but as a nation, more than a few thousand years old).

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 05:44
I was referring to the widespread acceptance of greed, nudity, sex, violence, and corrupt behaviour. And the belief that the use of force being acceptable in protecting the national interests, especially commercial. Many of these are symptoms of decadence and I believe the Roman empire exhibited similar traits in the run-up to its collapse.


What a load of horse crap! There are over 100,000 Americans in Iraq with declining moral standards! Rising oppenants? Son, I stood guard at the Fulda Gap against a real monster. China and India COMBINED TODAY doesn't even come close to the USSR and the Americans are MUCH further ahead today.

If I were you, I look at men and women who gave their word to their country and who kept their word to their country. And their country made sure that they're the best there ever was on this world.

I fail to see what a soldier who stands at a checkpoint in Iraq has to do with morality. It is morally neutral. Ignoring all other aspects of how and why he is there, he is doing his duty, end of story. You equate it with morality? Morality is doing the right thing.

And I assure you, his government is most certainly NOT doing the right thing. The soldier standing guard there has no choice, he has to follow his orders but the American government is not altruistic. It does not mind sending a few ships to save victims of a natural disaster or donating a few million dollars (which by the way, will buy goodwill) but the US government is most certainly NOT interested in spending US$6 billion each month, the lives of thousands of troops, and hostility from the rest of the world so that it can 'do the right thing'.

If the American government was interested in helping the downtrodden, America would not have abandoned the South Vietnamese in the hour of their greatest need (despite repeated promises from numerous American presidents) or ignored the Rwandans in '93 or the Sudanis in Darfur today.

The US government will however carry out the above-said actions (and more if necessary) in order to meet its long-term economic interests, as that is the major and probably sole reason for the existence of American state.

Colonel, I respect your age and the experience that you have gathered. I may be young and unwise, but looking at it from an independent POV, I think I see things that you can't or refuse to see. Why did you stand guard at Fulda Gap, Colonel? Why is that US Marine manning that post in Fallujah? I hope you don't think that you did it for the betterment of the Iraqi or East German people?

Because, quite frankly Colonel, your government does not care if East Germans or Iraqis are slowly roasted on a spite and eaten alive by cannibals so long as its interests are protected. You were there protecting the Fulda Gap so the Soviets would not overwhelmn Europe and takeover American allies and much of its trade partners with it. Not because they were concerned about the East German or Pole living under the heel of the Soviets.

And my countrymen have been fighting invaders long before your ancestors in Europe reached the level of barbarians, Colonel. So please stop talking about valourous American troops (aiding in the looting of various countries) when talking about morality as it is very annoying and irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Because I assure you, more of countrymen have fallen in battle defending the motherland, and more Indian jawans have fought and died bravely against overwhelming odds over the last 5 millenia (compared to 2 centuries for America) than you can count so there would be no point comparing the number of American war veterans/dead.


There are over 100,000 Americans in Iraq with declining moral standards!

This one line makes me think that your entire morality is based on the obedience and protection of the American state. If this is the case, then that is very sad. What, pray tell, does patriotism and love of one's country have to do with morality?

Let me tell you this Colonel: Morality is a rock, that we humans cannot properly define due our inherent inability to quantify it. As such we have different morals. But there is a core to morality that cannot be taken away, no matter how much you fight for the opposite. Protection and helping of the weak, contentment, respect for others, these are the things that I was taught that were supposed to be moral. And that doesn't change no matter what. Not even if my country, which I dearly love, engaged in acts that violated this morality.

Do you understand what I am saying, Colonel?

What is wrong is wrong, no matter how many or who calls it right that doesn't make it right. And though it would break my heart to criticize my country, what is right is right and I can't close my eyes to it just because my patriotism demands it.

And so I will criticize my country's abuse of the civilians in the North-east and in Kashmir and all the other violations of morality that my most ancient nation engages in. Because I must. Because morality is more important than some country.

You have chosen to close your eyes to what your country has done in Vietnam and Panama and Iraq and all the assasinations and topplings of democratic governments that your government has engaged in. Because for you, obedience and protection of America overrides morality. What is right does not matter so long as America is doing it.

Assume America collapses. Or if it makes it easier for you, assume that the Sun lets loose a flare that destroys North America. What will you do if your country falls tomorrow, Colonel? No country lives forever. Like humans, it will live and then it will die. What will you base your actions of morality on when your country no longer exists, Colonel? I suggest that you learn to do the right thing no matter what your country does. Because one day, perhaps long after your death, but surely one day, your beloved America will collapse. It is as inevitable as the rising of the sun.

And then nobody will care that you held the Fulda Gap or that the Marine in Iraq gave his life to allow America to secure oil supplies in Iraq. But somebody will still wonder if you did the right thing. Somebody will read over the actions of FDR or JFK or Clinton or GWB and concluded that they were just money-grubbing wealthy elites who used violence and subversion to make their rich country even more richer and more powerful. Which is, in the end, the truth.

So it doesn't matter if you don't want to separate morality and patriotism. It doesn't matter if you think that the usage of violence by America is right. Because one day, long after you and America are gone, somebody will open up a textbook and they will read and they will know that America did invade Iraq to secure oil supplies for their future use. And they will know all the other things that America did to stay on top.


Obviously, you are too damned young to understand the historic and cultural aspects of my posts, so I will spell it out for you. The Americans are young and hungry. Neither India nor China is that young and let's face it, not that hungry.

Yes, you are right Colonel. America is very hungry. For more money and for more power. And it will do anything, ANYTHING, to get more of these two. They even gave a nice philosophical name to it: Ethical Egoism. Makes it nice and rational and clean and acceptable. A nice name for pure selfishness, I must say.

I cannot tell if you are referring to the age of the general American population but I assure you, India's population is far younger than either China's or America's, both of which will have vast numbers of people retiring starting 2010.

If we are both still alive in 2100, a highly unlikely proposition, I will ask you again who is more hungry: The Americans or Asians. The answer might shock you.

troung
15 Jun 05,, 05:56
but the US government is most certainly NOT interested in spending US$6 billion each month, the lives of thousands of troops, and hostility from the rest of the world so that it can 'do the right thing'

How much does India spend?


If we are both still alive in 2100, a highly unlikely proposition, I will ask you again who is more hungry: The Americans or Asians. The answer might shock you.

Who gives a shiit? You'll be dead... so will I...


It does not mind sending a few ships to save victims of a natural disaster or donating a few million dollars (which by the way, will buy goodwill)

Few ships? Few million dollars? **** you buddy...

Back to your base bullshiit... America spent billions a year on bases overseas along with supplying top of the line military equipment for free, having these nations backs on their domesitic issues, and buying their foriegn policy. The Philippines got a cool billion a year from the USA along with top of the line equipment. Same with Thailand and others. And even still money had to be shelled out to let them use them for war.

So you might want to think about the costs to do this before running at the mouth how India needs to elbow in and make bases in SE Asia to fight China from Vietnam or Thailand or the Philippines or Papua New Guinea...

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 05:59
Few ships? Few million dollars? **** you buddy...

I was referring to American 'humanitarian' aid, not military and foriegn spending.

Jay
15 Jun 05,, 06:02
I was referring to the widespread acceptance of greed, nudity, sex, violence, and corrupt behaviour. And the belief that the use of force being acceptable in protecting the national interests, especially commercial. Many of these are symptoms of decadence and I believe the Roman empire exhibited similar traits in the run-up to its collapse.
So China and India does not have wide spread corruption, greed, sex and nudity?? What a bull crap!! China has used force previously to protect national interest and so has India, or else we wudnt have fought any wars with Pakistan, both offensive and defensive.


I fail to see what a soldier who stands at a checkpoint in Iraq has to do with morality. It is morally neutral. Ignoring all other aspects of how and why he is there, he is doing his duty, end of story. You equate it with morality? Morality is doing the right thing.
You are ignorant. Morality to a military soldier is not the right thing to do, but the morale for executing his duties.And when the Colonel says its high, it means he is locked and loaded to perform his duties, what ever it may be. A solider does not and should not care whether he is doing the right thing. A soldier always has to obey his ROE and orders from his commander. You are too confusing...


Yes, you are right Colonel. America is very hungry. For more money and for more power. And it will do anything, ANYTHING, to get more of these two. They even gave a nice philosophical name to it: Ethical Egoism. Makes it nice and rational and clean and acceptable. A nice name for pure selfishness, I must say.
Do you think India and China will not do anything for power and money?? You will be surprised. India and China does not have a chance now, so they are quiet.

troung
15 Jun 05,, 06:04
I was referring to American 'humanitarian' aid, not military and foriegn spending.

And I was referring to **** you buddy...

People stick their goddamn hands out and have the mother ****ing nerve to call it a "few ships and a few million dollars"... **** that and **** you...

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 06:05
I was referring to the widespread acceptance of greed, nudity, sex, violence, and corrupt behaviour. And the belief that the use of force being acceptable in protecting the national interests, especially commercial. Many of these are symptoms of decadence and I believe the Roman empire exhibited similar traits in the run-up to its collapse.

And you think this is new? I can find you porn a 1000 years back. Kama Sutra mean anything to you?


I fail to see what a soldier who stands at a checkpoint in Iraq has to do with morality. It is morally neutral. Ignoring all other aspects of how and why he is there, he is doing his duty, end of story. You equate it with morality? Morality is doing the right thing.

A man gives his word. A man keeps his word.


And I assure you, his government is most certainly NOT doing the right thing. The soldier standing guard there has no choice, he has to follow his orders but the American government is not altruistic. It does not mind sending a few ships to save victims of a natural disaster or donating a few million dollars (which by the way, will buy goodwill) but the US government is most certainly NOT interested in spending US$6 billion each month, the lives of thousands of troops, and hostility from the rest of the world so that it can 'do the right thing'.

Son, I'm not going to change your mind on this. You have a very skewed and very unrealistic appraisal of people. Those in charge WANT to do the right thing and they BELIEVE that they are doing the right thing.


The US government will however carry out the above-said actions (and more if necessary) in order to meet its long-term economic interests, as that is the major and probably sole reason for the existence of American state.

And that's not a right thing?


Colonel, I respect your age and the experience that you have gathered. I may be young and unwise, but looking at it from an independent POV, I think I see things that you can't or refuse to see. Why did you stand guard at Fulda Gap, Colonel?

So you can type your ill inform messages on the WAB today and I'm damned serious.


Why is that US Marine manning that post in Fallujah? I hope you don't think that you did it for the betterment of the Iraqi or East German people?

I hoped not. I wanted to kill the East Germans and they us. As for Fallujah, read the milblogs of both the Marines and Iraqis (from all sides).


Because, quite frankly Colonel, your government does not care if East Germans or Iraqis are slowly roasted on a spite and eaten alive by cannibals so long as its interests are protected. You were there protecting the Fulda Gap so the Soviets would not overwhelmn Europe and takeover American allies and much of its trade partners with it. Not because they were concerned about the East German or Pole living under the heel of the Soviets.

I have news for you. The Poles and East Germans were just as ready to stomp us.


This one line makes me think that your entire morality is based on the obedience and protection of the American state. If this is the case, then that is very sad. What, pray tell, does patriotism and love of one's country have to do with morality?

That one line tells me how ignorant you are. 100,000 Americans have been taught by their families that when one gives his or her word, then one keeps his or her word. Can you say you've been taught the same? Is keeping one's word a sign of moral decay?


Let me tell you this Colonel: Morality is a rock, that we humans cannot properly define due our inherent inability to quantify it. As such we have different morals. But there is a core to morality that cannot be taken away, no matter how much you fight for the opposite. Protection and helping of the weak, contentment, respect for others, these are the things that I was taught that were supposed to be moral. And that doesn't change no matter what. Not even if my country, which I dearly love, engaged in acts that violated this morality.

It's damned simple to me. I gave my word to protect what I love. I kept my word in protecting what I love. If I did not love what I was to protect, then I would not have given my word. It's that simple. Those Americans gave their word to protect what they love.


Do you understand what I am saying, Colonel?

I do and you're not understanding me.


What is wrong is wrong, no matter how many or who calls it right that doesn't make it right. And though it would break my heart to criticize my country, what is right is right and I can't close my eyes to it just because my patriotism demands it.

You're mixing nationalism with patriotism.


And so I will criticize my country's abuse of the civilians in the North-east and in Kashmir and all the other violations of morality that my most ancient nation engages in. Because I must. Because morality is more important than some country.

The difference here is that there are some who are willing to put their live on the line to change it, including the good Brigadier Ray and the good Captain Lemontree. You, however, could not appreciate their deeds.


You have chosen to close your eyes to what your country has done in Vietnam and Panama and Iraq and all the assasinations and topplings of democratic governments that your government has engaged in. Because for you, obedience and protection of America overrides morality. What is right does not matter so long as America is doing it.

I'm Canadian Forces, moron!


Assume America collapses. Or if it makes it easier for you, assume that the Sun lets loose a flare that destroys North America. What will you do if your country falls tomorrow, Colonel? No country lives forever. Like humans, it will live and then it will die. What will you base your actions of morality on when your country no longer exists, Colonel? I suggest that you learn to do the right thing no matter what your country does. Because one day, perhaps long after your death, but surely one day, your beloved America will collapse. It is as inevitable as the rising of the sun.

And then nobody will care that you held the Fulda Gap or that the Marine in Iraq gave his life to allow America to secure oil supplies in Iraq. But somebody will still wonder if you did the right thing. Somebody will read over the actions of FDR or JFK or Clinton or GWB and concluded that they were just money-grubbing wealthy elites who used violence and subversion to make their rich country even more richer and more powerful. Which is, in the end, the truth.

So it doesn't matter if you don't want to separate morality and patriotism. It doesn't matter if you think that the usage of violence by America is right. Because one day, long after you and America are gone, somebody will open up a textbook and they will read and they will know that America did invade Iraq to secure oil supplies for their future use. And they will know all the other things that America did to stay on top.

Meaningless bable.


Yes, you are right Colonel. America is very hungry. For more money and for more power. And it will do anything, ANYTHING, to get more of these two. They even gave a nice philosophical name to it: Ethical Egoism. Makes it nice and rational and clean and acceptable. A nice name for pure selfishness, I must say.

They went to the moon.


I cannot tell if you are referring to the age of the general American population but I assure you, India's population is far younger than either China's or America's, both of which will have vast numbers of people retiring starting 2010.

If we are both still alive in 2100, a highly unlikely proposition, I will ask you again who is more hungry: The Americans or Asians. The answer might shock you.

Again, the point to which you have missed. Young and hungry Mongols overtook an older and larger China. The same with the Mughals and India.

bull
15 Jun 05,, 06:21
Given the steadily falling condition of the American economy, declining moral standards, and rising opponent nations, I would wonder what way or combination of ways will cause the collapse of America, instead of thinking that either the Mongols or the Mughals pose some threat to China and India today, if I were you.

Faling Amercian economy.....thats just mathematical stunt dont believe it.US iss as healthy as it was.If you are speaking of defecit then that also is a mathematical stunt.

Rising oppponent nations...which one?Iran?Iraq?Afghanistan?Syria?We all know what they are capable of doing to amercia.

We cant compare the US dominance to the british dominance or the mughals the romans or anything.
America domiated the world with monetory power.They play the smart mans game..not the "walk in..blow off"style.

hammer
15 Jun 05,, 06:24
Originally Posted by Rani Lakshmibai
And so I will criticize my country's abuse of the civilians in the North-east and in Kashmir and all the other violations of morality that my most ancient nation engages in. Because I must. Because morality is more important than some country.

BS.

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 06:27
So China and India does not have wide spread corruption, greed, sex and nudity?? What a bull crap!! China has used force previously to protect national interest and so has India, or else we wudnt have fought any wars with Pakistan, both offensive and defensive.

This kind of behaviour is a common behaviour in America, especially among the youth and it is popularized by Hollywood. I don't think that this is socially acceptable in India or China, though unfortunately, thanks to the influence of Hollywood and egoism, in a few years time that might change.


You are ignorant. Morality to a military soldier is not the right thing to do, but the morale for executing his duties.And when the Colonel says its high, it means he is locked and loaded to perform his duties, what ever it may be. A solider does not and should not care whether he is doing the right thing. A soldier always has to obey his ROE and orders from his commander. You are too confusing...

No, the military wants and needs you to blindly follow the chain of command. Will a soldier mow down civilians or rape an 8-year-old because his CO ordered it? The army needs morality just as much as anyone else.

At any rate it doesn't matter. Because the military doesn't do immoral things on a large scale until ordered to by the civilian administration. And the civilian administration does what those who put them in power want them to do.

Change the attitude of the people and America will not do what it does today. Forget the military, they are not the root of the problem.


Do you think India and China will not do anything for power and money?? You will be surprised. India and China does not have a chance now, so they are quiet.

They will now. What choice do they have? Power, money and influence on the world stage can be obtained only by converting your country to a consumer nation, endless consuming products designed for obsolesence, stealing the Earth's resources and damaging the economy as America pioneered the system at the end of WWII.

If you don't conform to what the rest of the world is doing, how can you compete? There is no way, India and China would fall behind. Both countries had socialist governments in place that (in theory at least) were supposed to be protecting the weaker members of society. But part of the reason (many other reasons too) they didn't succeed was that influential and rich nations were all capitalist, with large consumer economies.

These economies are based on egoism, or selfishness and of course, these economies would of course win out over those that want to help 'the working-class'. Both countries remained economically insignificant as a result. But the second they switched to meet the capitalists on their terms, their economies took.

But, as both India and China are increasingly moving towards a consumer economy, where goods are used and thrown away, and new ones being bought (and corporations only to happy to sell them replacements), this places an enormous strain on the Earth and its resources. The Western world does not even amount to 1 billion people. But if 2.5 billion people in China and India decide to do the same thing that the West does in order to keep up with them, how much longer will the Earth's biosphere be able to sustain us? We are already severely damaging the world.

One country can't stay back without falling behind. All the countries have to do the same to protect the Earth or all can try and reach for more and more wealth and eventually destroy Mother Earth. Unfortunately, the latter view is what seems to prevaling and our world is getting more and more polluted, its resources taken to make goods planned to be obsolete in a little while so that this system consumer economy cycle introduced by America can continue to turn until the world's ecosystem collapses in on itself.

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 06:33
On a side-top, it's heart-warming to know that I am universally hated :).

bull
15 Jun 05,, 06:34
Those in charge WANT to do the right thing and they BELIEVE that they are doing the right thing.

Well OOE, i have to agree with Rani over here.Its not whether it is right or wrong its just about protecting your interests.

indianguy4u
15 Jun 05,, 06:41
When is this sloging match going to end?

hammer
15 Jun 05,, 07:01
On a side-top, it's heart-warming to know that I am universally hated :).

Hate is a strong word for that. Lets just say that we dont agree with your points.

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 07:34
A man gives his word. A man keeps his word.

And because men like you keep your word, the country of Iraq is now occupied by a foreign country who is now out to protect its interests by proceeding to take control of its oil supplies.

It's not that we don't appreciate your military service, Colonel. But my appreciation of American military involvement involves only WWII. Because the cause was just. Soldiers are merely the tool, the American politicians are those that make the decisions to do immoral things on such a grand scale.


And that's not a right thing?

At what cost Colonel? What price will inflict on other countries in order to see to your interests? That is the interesting question. Here is another one for you: What price can other countries inflict on America in the pursuit of their own interests? Of course, should they even dream of doing so, America will reduce them to dust.

So if you are powerful, your interests are important but if you aren't strong, then if you try and take any course of action that threatens the strong guy, he will proceed to smash you. Might is right? Is that right, Colonel?


So you can type your ill inform messages on the WAB today and I'm damned serious.

Yes partly Colonel. If the Soviets won, North America would be in bad shape. But America fought the Soviets in order be the big kid on the block. And now, the big kid is free to steal all the other kids' lunches.


That one line tells me how ignorant you are. 100,000 Americans have been taught by their families that when one gives his or her word, then one keeps his or her word. Can you say you've been taught the same? Is keeping one's word a sign of moral decay?


It's damned simple to me. I gave my word to protect what I love. I kept my word in protecting what I love. If I did not love what I was to protect, then I would not have given my word. It's that simple. Those Americans gave their word to protect what they love.

That is what your government told you, Colonel. And they were partly right. YOU were fighting to prevent the Soviets taking over and destroying North America. But America was fighting to be the big boy on the block, the most powerful country on Earth. And in that position dominate the rest of the world.

I'm sure all the suffering children in the countries of South America who had their democratic governments overthrown by the Americans will thank you and 100,000 American soldiers for fighting to protect yourselves. Or the Iranians who are desparate for jobs and money for the overthrowing of their democratic government back in '50s.


The difference here is that there are some who are willing to put their live on the line to change it, including the good Brigadier Ray and the good Captain Lemontree. You, however, could not appreciate their deeds.

I'm not the civilian who spits on the troops returning from Vietnam, Colonel. I respect my nation's soldiers and that of any nearly any other nation very much. I don't agree with American foreign and military policy. Why are you mixing the two?


I'm Canadian Forces, moron!

Well, since you were busy defending the Americans Colonel, I naturally assumed that you were an American soldier.

I assure you, most younger Canadians don't share your admiring opinion of Americans. You know that better than I, I think.


They went to the moon.

What in blue blazes does this have anything to do with the topic at hand?


Again, the point to which you have missed. Young and hungry Mongols overtook an older and larger China. The same with the Mughals and India.

I presume by young and hungry you mean more aggressive and with a go-getter attitude. Well, Western economic policy are converting the Chinese and Indians into young, hungry beasts, Colonel. Because they can either conform or fall behind. And by this century's end I fear that Asia will be more 'hungry and young' than the West.



Originally Posted by Rani Lakshmibai
And so I will criticize my country's abuse of the civilians in the North-east and in Kashmir and all the other violations of morality that my most ancient nation engages in. Because I must. Because morality is more important than some country.

BS.

You caught me out, hammer. I have no clue why I said what I did as I was meaning to say something else here.



Well OOE, i have to agree with Rani over here.Its not whether it is right or wrong its just about protecting your interests.

And this is my point of contention with the Americans. I understand that in foreign policy you gotta do some immoral things to stay on top but the extent to which the Americans are taking it is ridiculous. How many democratic governments that were anti-American did the Americans topple? How many times have they interfered and dictated? How many women, children and others have paid the price for America's quest to stay on top? And of course, other countries have to do similar things or risk falling behind.

Why can't they be like Canada? How many times has Canada interfered on such a large scale in the affairs of foreign states? If you follow a strategy like that, limited interference only when absolutely unavoidable, then you will fare much better in this world. And your competitors will not have to do you one better to stay in the game.


When is this sloging match going to end?

I don't know. Pretty soon I think. I can't take much more mud-slinging anymore, I might quit.... :)

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 09:26
Well OOE, i have to agree with Rani over here.Its not whether it is right or wrong its just about protecting your interests.

And that's a wrong thing?

bull
15 Jun 05,, 10:52
And that's a wrong thing?

As long as it is in the interest of the people who u r suppose to protect.There is nothing wrong in it.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 14:34
It's damned simple Rani. We're telling you what the situation is, not what you want it to be. You have absolutely no say, no authority, no influence to change the course of Indian policies. You want to do that, go back to India. Join the army/political party/bureaucrazy, pay your dudes and then run for office. Until then, you're pissing on an electric fence and the fence really don't give a damn.

indianguy4u
15 Jun 05,, 14:52
I don't know in which world does rani lives :)

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 19:58
I don't understand why I seem to have given the impression that I think that India is a superpower or anything, because even as deluded as everyone else thinks I am, even I am not so stupid as to think that.

I have repeatedly said that I was projecting more than 100 years into the future. I am well aware that this is not a reality today and may not be in the future. However, let me repeat: I am projecting into the future, not talking about present-day India, no matter how unreliable fortune-telling may be.

And OOE, I have a very real interest in joining in military and perhaps moving on to politics. I don't see much difference in what I believe and what indianguy4u or hammer or even what you believe, except that I don't believe in interfering in foreign affairs to the point of severely harming millions of FOREIGN civilians to advance the interests of one group of people (Americans) or the environment, as America has done. I'm a realist, some amount of immoral and unethical actions will be absolutely necessary in foreign and military relations, but I believe in drawing a line somewhere. I don't believe in winning at any and at all costs...

JASOOS VIJAY
15 Jun 05,, 20:13
I have repeatedly said that I was projecting more than 100 years into the future.

Are u a astrologer?

Rani Lakshmibai
15 Jun 05,, 20:36
I don't have to be. I can't predict with any certainty who our enemies will be, or how big we will be.

A Goldman-Sachs report indicates that India is the only country that will be able to maintain a 5% growthrate over the next fifty years. If India continues to grow at this pace for another 70-100 years, it's economy will be larger than that of America's, even if individual Indians will not be as rich as the average American.

It's that simple. I know that unforseen events may negatively hinder our economy, but nothing short of catastrophic events would derail the Indian economy. But every country on Earth is open to such events in the future, not just India.

This is what I base my assumptions on.

JASOOS VIJAY
15 Jun 05,, 20:51
However rich India can become, but can India spend as much as america does on defence? Ans is no, b'coz India has bigger population ie more to spend on people. As also there is considerable proportion below poverty. Govt in a mad rush to become super power cannot overlook this aspect which u, me other individuals can.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 05,, 22:49
Rani,

All I can say is that you have alot of growing up to do. Good luck with your choices. I gave you the right to your opinions no matter how utterly wrong they are.

Amled
16 Jun 05,, 02:56
... I'm a realist, some amount of immoral and unethical actions will be absolutely necessary in foreign and military relations, but I believe in drawing a line somewhere. I don't believe in winning at any and at all costs...

Then ultimately you will lose.
Because sooner or later you will meet someone who doesnít share your fine sensibilities, then it will be the people under your command who will pay the price of those noble principles you hold so dear.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jun 05,, 03:04
Then ultimately you will lose.
Because sooner or later you will meet someone who doesnít share your fine sensibilities, then it will be the people under your command who will pay the price of those noble principles you hold so dear.

He's not officer material.

Amled
16 Jun 05,, 03:18
He's not officer material.
Maybe not, but apparently he has aspirations in that direction. And if retains them one can only hope that a Selection Board will pick up on them.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jun 05,, 03:40
Not until he grows up alot and knows the meaning of honour, duty, and loyalty (to superiors, peers, and subordinates). Concepts of which he has very little understanding of.

bull
16 Jun 05,, 06:42
I don't have to be. I can't predict with any certainty who our enemies will be, or how big we will be.

A Goldman-Sachs report indicates that India is the only country that will be able to maintain a 5% growthrate over the next fifty years. If India continues to grow at this pace for another 70-100 years, it's economy will be larger than that of America's, even if individual Indians will not be as rich as the average American.

It's that simple. I know that unforseen events may negatively hinder our economy, but nothing short of catastrophic events would derail the Indian economy. But every country on Earth is open to such events in the future, not just India.

This is what I base my assumptions on.

India can be as big as US by achieving half the per capita income of US.Such a position is only good on papaer.What we are speaking about here is when india can bring the standard of living at par with US.Thats beyond anybodies calculation.

bull
16 Jun 05,, 06:53
Forget US,india has got lots to catch up with china.Amnd the argument that rani says india can only achieve 5% growth rate for the coming 50 years is also unfounded.China is ste to slow down from the current growth rate,but still it will manage more than5 %.
In year 2040 india and china(Chindia) together is suppose to beat US.Thats if everything goes on perfect.

highsea
16 Jun 05,, 08:14
Trying to predict or project the future is an excersize in futility. Who in 1850 predicted the Industrial revolution? How many people in 1969, at the height of the cold war and the space race, predicted the implosion of the Soviet Union? In 1975, who predicted the impact of computers, the Internet, and the "information age"?

Answer- No one.

No one can say what the world will be like in 50 or 100 years, because the technologies that will shape the world at that time have not been invented yet. What will be the impact of cheap fusion power? What advances will be made in medicine and bioengineering? Let the economists make their predictions, and let the dreamers dream- but reality will be nothing like the predictions, if history is any indication.

But here, I will make a little prediction myself- whatever the next technological revolution happens to be, it will come from America.

Rani Lakshmibai
17 Jun 05,, 13:38
Then ultimately you will lose.
Because sooner or later you will meet someone who doesnít share your fine sensibilities, then it will be the people under your command who will pay the price of those noble principles you hold so dear.


He's not officer material.


Maybe not, but apparently he has aspirations in that direction. And if retains them one can only hope that a Selection Board will pick up on them.


Not until he grows up alot and knows the meaning of honour, duty, and loyalty (to superiors, peers, and subordinates). Concepts of which he has very little understanding of.


I don't know why you insist on jumping to conclusions (and not reading my post for that matter). I believe I indicated that I was willing to join my nation's military forces? You should assume that such a statement is not lightly made, I have done my research and I know a bit more than the average civilian on military affairs. OOE and Amled seem to be labouring under the delusion that, on the outbreak of hostilities, I, as an officer (or enlisted personnel) of the Indian Army, will proceed to invite the enemy over for a picnic during which time I will open negotiations with them.

I don't think I've said anything along these lines. In the event that a threat against India occurs, I would like to think that I will not hestitate to engage it in combat (though my performance remains to be seen until combat actually breaks out). I am fully prepared to use all necessary means to neutralize this threat.

What I did say was this:


I don't see much difference in what I believe and what indianguy4u or hammer or even what you believe, except that I don't believe in interfering in foreign affairs to the point of severely harming millions of FOREIGN civilians to advance the interests of one group of people (Americans) or the environment, as America has done.

In short, I am not willing to harm smaller countries that pose no threat to my country in the pursuit of some monetary gain. OOE you seem to love talking about duty, honour and courage etc. I wonder if you have any concept of what these terms mean. I'm no expert on these matters but I suspect you have a skewed view of this subject. Probably because the army has pumped one single definition into your head, causing all other definitions to be wrong by default.

Let me put it in terms that you understand. Three years ago, the White House sent warships to 'jam' communications in a certain country where CIA men had been plotting with members of a coup attempting to take over this country with unconfirmed reports that the Americans actually had to the gall to land support choppers on this country's soil as a part of this coup. Unfortunately for the Americans, (to cut a long story short) the coup went awry and control passed back to the president, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Why was Chavez targeted like this? Apparently, he is the first president of Venezuela that cares about the 60% of the population that lives in slums and shantytowns. Venezuela apparently had been ruled by the ultra-rich descendants of the white plantation owners since independence. In an country where there are cardboard cities, the elite whites drive around in Porsches and own the majority of the land and siphon off billions of dollars from the national oil revenue. Chavez, elected twice to presidency, wanted to change this system around and of course, the upper crust wasn't too pleased with this and America was even less pleased with this, especially moves like increasing taxes on the oil and a ban on oil privatization (which means Exxon can't suck the country dry) so that he could pay for.... god forbid.... healthcare and schools. And of course, the free-marketers now call him a communist. Ah well, at least that's better than being called a capitalist.

Now if America had a reason to behave like this towards Venezuela, if Venezuela posed a legitimate threat, then I would have no problem with America making war. Heck, I'd come over and help you kill the Venezuelans. I've no doubt that the sailors on the ships that were doing the jamming and the pilots of the choppers and even the spooks were following orders and were as honourable and loyal as can be. That doesn't change the fact that they participated in an act of taking down the first man who stepped forward to represent the poorer class of Venezuelans who live on the street instead of playing to the ultra-rich capitalists tune. As far as I can tell, Hugo Chavez's crime was trying to put food in the mouth of those who didn't have any.

I haven't read any reports of him mustering the army to threaten America. I watch TV but I haven't seen his navy off the coat of Los Angelos (not even on CNN). I haven't heard of American nationals been round up and shot. I haven't read any reports of him supplying Al Qaida with money and weapons. Tell me you did OOE. Give me links showing that he deliberately set out to make war on America. Because that's why this coup was justified, right? Because American 'freedom' was being threatened by the oh so terrible and overwhelming forces of the mean Venezuelans?

Show me where Venezuela and Hugo Chavez in particular posed a threat to America. Show me where American 'freedom' was threatened. If you can't, which of course you can't, don't talk to me about the need for upholding freedom by honourable and loyal US troops. The only American 'freedom' that would have been protected would be lower oil prices and a stable source of oil in America's backyard (a real necessity what with the ever hostile West Asia) I am more interested in if a Venezuelan slum child gets food in his mouth and if that means I have to pay higher prices, I will gladly do so.

I don't know what American troops have done and I don't care, the decision to overthrow Chavez was taken by civlians, the American administration and the blame rests completely rests on the politicians. So don't you dare talk to me about loyalty and honour, if yours is the perverted and misguided sense of loyalty and honour that takes away from the poor who dwell in cardboard cities to feed the wealthiest of Americans. If you can go to sleep at night thinking that you are honourable in supporting a regime that amasses wealth at the cost of starving children, then you are more fit to jailed as a psychopath than to be a soldier.




Trying to predict or project the future is an excersize in futility. Who in 1850 predicted the Industrial revolution? How many people in 1969, at the height of the cold war and the space race, predicted the implosion of the Soviet Union? In 1975, who predicted the impact of computers, the Internet, and the "information age"?

Answer- No one.

No one can say what the world will be like in 50 or 100 years, because the technologies that will shape the world at that time have not been invented yet. What will be the impact of cheap fusion power? What advances will be made in medicine and bioengineering? Let the economists make their predictions, and let the dreamers dream- but reality will be nothing like the predictions, if history is any indication.

But here, I will make a little prediction myself- whatever the next technological revolution happens to be, it will come from America.


You were doing alright until you came to the part about the next technological revolution happening in America. That completely contradicted your points about the future being unpredictable. It is certainly true that the America spends vast amounts on R&D but the newest trend in world R&D is co-operative funding with countries co-operating on research. An example would be how America formed a coalition of countries to co-operate on nuclear fusion, so I would expect the next breakthrough to come through a co-operative effort.

Now if you were talking about how the Americans will rip off technology developed by co-operative blocks that don't include America, that's a totally different matter....

Officer of Engineers
17 Jun 05,, 13:54
What a load of horse crap! I've had a little girl asked me why her daddy ain't coming home no more. You tell me if I don't know about honour, duty, and loyalty.

Rani Lakshmibai
17 Jun 05,, 13:58
Rani,

All I can say is that you have alot of growing up to do. Good luck with your choices. I gave you the right to your opinions no matter how utterly wrong they are.

Do not be so arrogant as to dismiss those younger than you as being wrong or foolish. That is more foolish than any mistake I could make.

Officer of Engineers
17 Jun 05,, 14:03
I don't have to do anything of the sort. You've done that pretty well yourself.

Rani Lakshmibai
17 Jun 05,, 14:05
Her daddy ain't coming back home because American politicians sent him to carry out coups in places like Venezuela.

He may have performed with honour, but he didn't have a choice, he was a soldier. Blame the American politicians.

The question you should be asking yourself is: Why was her daddy in a place where his country probably had no right to send him?

Officer of Engineers
17 Jun 05,, 14:08
You're a freaking damned idiot!

I'm Canadian Forces and I've lost her daddy in Yugoslavia doing a Peacekeeping Op! I will say again that you're not officer material. Hell, you're not even soldier material not having the smarts to listen to people with far more knowledge and far more experience.

I had thought you were naive but now, I know you're a freaking idiot with a freaking agenda you want to push.

Where do all these idiots come from. Another to join the ignore list.

Rani Lakshmibai
17 Jun 05,, 14:38
I ask you again, if you are Canadian then why are you defending America? If you talking about Canadian war dead, I have all the respect in the world for them.

But when I start talking about Americans pushing their agenda, you tell me that I have no concept of loyalty or honour. I don't quite understand why you dragging in a Canadian KIA into discussions about American imperialism. What pray tell, does a Canadian soldier who died in battle on a UN sanctioned peace-keeping operation have to do with American war dead who were sent by their politicians to interfere in places like Vietnam, Iraq and Venezuela? Don't insult a Canadian soldier who actually died for something of value like this. I know you are trying to illustrate that you have learnt from experience about honour and loyalty, but what does that have to do with American policies?

I pity the American war dead in Iraq. They are dying for economic reasons, and for absolutely nothing to do with freedom or protection of the American state. You are dragging in things that are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Furthermore, you completely ignored my requests to show that America's actions are justified. Which you would, since their actions cannot be justified.

And like I told highsea, I couldn't care less if a right-winger moron thinks that I'm to be ignored. Especially since I wasn't even arguing against Canada (I live here for God's sake), I was arguing against American policies.

Jay
17 Jun 05,, 14:53
I ask you again, if you are Canadian then why are you defending America? If you talking about Canadian war dead, I have all the respect in the world for them.
Becoz both the countries fight for the same rights, they both share the same cause and concerns.


I don't quite understand why you dragging in a Canadian KIA into discussions about American imperialism.
Its one and the same.


What pray tell, does a Canadian soldier who died in battle on a UN sanctioned peace-keeping operation have to do with American war dead who were sent by their politicians to interfere in places like Vietnam, Iraq and Venezuela?
As I said, same reasons, defending liberty.


Don't insult a Canadian soldier who actually died for something of value like this.
You are talking to a CDF Lt Col. Tread carefully.


I know you are trying to illustrate that you have learnt from experience about honour and loyalty, but what does that have to do with American policies?
Whats wrong with American policies?


I pity the American war dead in Iraq.
I pity you.


They are dying for economic reasons, and for absolutely nothing to do with freedom or protection of the American state.
So a nation can go to war only if its existance is threatned? Stupid 3rd world logic. Dont say that to millions of Iraqi Kurds and others who were chained by Baathists.


You are dragging in things that are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Actually its quite contrary.


Furthermore, you completely ignored my requests to show that America's actions are justified. Which you would, since their actions cannot be justified.
Why does he even need to justify it?? That too, to you??


Especially since I wasn't even arguing against Canada (I live here for God's sake), I was arguing against American policies.
Right, Canada has fought a number of battles along with american forces, does NATO or ABCA coalition means anything to you??

Rani Lakshmibai
17 Jun 05,, 15:34
Becoz both the countries fight for the same rights, they both share the same cause and concerns.

I live in Canada. I suggest you come up here and talk to people before you make idiotic comments. While to a certain extent Canada and America have similar concerns, the Canadian political climate is growing increasingly more colder towards the Americans especially among the younger segments of the population. Walk into any school or university and speak in support of the Iraq war and you might get beaten to death. A crazy MP, Carolyn Parrish actually publicly stomped on a Bush doll and even insulted the Americans in public numerous times. Canada refused to join the Iraq war and there are numerous economic conflicts going on with the US like the beef ban and softwood lumber.

Ask the Colonel, he knows what I'm talking about.Well maybe not. He's of the old era, living in a world where Americans and Canadians are best friends (and Canada supports everything that America says), I think. Especially because he served with them. You will not find many people (especially younger generation) like that in Canada today. Younger Canadians are almost universally against American policy.



As I said, same reasons, defending liberty.

Defending liberty? Are you trying to make me choke on my sandwich in half-laughter and half-disgust? Let's talk about the coup in Venezuela and I'm sure you will illustrate how Hugo Chavez is planning an attack on America or how he is funding the Al Qaida.


You are talking to a CDF Lt Col. Tread carefully.

I'm aware of that. I just don't think it is right to compare a Canadian soldier who died on a UN Sanctioned peacekeeping mission and an American soldier who died in Iraq, at least in terms of the morality of the missions given to them by their respective political leaders. I don't think that the poor Canadian soldier is being given his due. His mission was just, and so were his actions in combat.


So a nation can go to war only if its existance is threatned? Stupid 3rd world logic. Dont say that to millions of Iraqi Kurds and others who were chained by Baathists.

I think that an entire ethnic group being gassed by Iraq would be classified as its 'existence is threatened'. Not that you Americans would care, considering how you encouraged them to revolt during the Gulf War, promising to get rid of Saddam, and then left them to rot and to be gassed.


Why does he even need to justify it?? That too, to you??

You need to justify it because me and the other people who are asking and the ones on the recieving end of American policies. And we don't like your attempts to 'free' us. Sort of like a thief shoving a victim down and then stealing her necklace and purse while helping her up. We ain't happy. And we won't be messed around with forever because a day of reckoning will come, I promise you that.


Right, Canada has fought a number of battles along with american forces, does NATO or ABCA coalition means anything to you??

Canada only joined NATO because of the Soviet threat and because they were friendlier with the Americans back then than they are today. If you want a true measure of how friendly Canada and America are today, ask the Colonel how many Canadian troops were sent to fight in Iraq, at a time when America was desperate for any and all allies it could get.

EricTheRed
17 Jun 05,, 15:49
wow. you convinced me, I am completetly ashamed of my nation. Americans dont deserve to live because we are evil people [sarcasm/]

Jay
17 Jun 05,, 17:22
I live in Canada. I suggest you come up here and talk to people before you make idiotic comments.
Idiotic, I dont need to come to Canada to talk to Canadian.


While to a certain extent Canada and America have similar concerns, the Canadian political climate is growing increasingly more colder towards the Americans especially among the younger segments of the population.
The generation thats controlling the govt knows how valuable ties with US are.


Walk into any school or university and speak in support of the Iraq war and you might get beaten to death. A crazy MP, Carolyn Parrish actually publicly stomped on a Bush doll and even insulted the Americans in public numerous times.
Wake up, in that case, Americans have publicly insulted Canadians numerous times, it doesnt mean jack.


Canada refused to join the Iraq war and there are numerous economic conflicts going on with the US like the beef ban and softwood lumber.
Still America is the largest trading partner for Canada. Canada didnt join publicly, but hen Canada eased America's load by sending in more troops to Afghanistan. So indirectly Canada is helping America in Iraq.


You will not find many people (especially younger generation) like that in Canada today. Younger Canadians are almost universally against American policy.
There are lot many Canadians in this board, who will prove you wrong.


Defending liberty? Are you trying to make me choke on my sandwich in half-laughter and half-disgust?
Either way, I wouldnt care.


Let's talk about the coup in Venezuela and I'm sure you will illustrate how Hugo Chavez is planning an attack on America or how he is funding the Al Qaida.
You gotta very narrow outlook. He doesnt need to attack America or fund ALQ. The public themselves are aligned against him.


I'm aware of that. I just don't think it is right to compare a Canadian soldier who died on a UN Sanctioned peacekeeping mission and an American soldier who died in Iraq, at least in terms of the morality
Your morality means jack to me.


I think that an entire ethnic group being gassed by Iraq would be classified as its 'existence is threatened'. Not that you Americans would care, considering how you encouraged them to revolt during the Gulf War, promising to get rid of Saddam, and then left them to rot and to be gassed.
Thats why America kept funding them, and when push comes to shove, America helped them, by fighting against Sadam.


You need to justify it because me and the other people who are asking and the ones on the recieving end of American policies. And we don't like your attempts to 'free' us.
There are 1000 more people who approve American policies.


We ain't happy. And we won't be messed around with forever because a day of reckoning will come, I promise you that.
We are waiting for that day.


ask the Colonel how many Canadian troops were sent to fight in Iraq, at a time when America was desperate for any and all allies it could get.
Read above, Canada indeed helped America by sending in more re-inforcements.

Srirangan
17 Jun 05,, 17:28
How the hell did a India-China thread turn into this?

Officer of Engineers
17 Jun 05,, 18:10
ask the Colonel how many Canadian troops were sent to fight in Iraq, at a time when America was desperate for any and all allies it could get.

147 Canadian Forces personel participated directly in the ground invasion of Iraq. 2700 Canadians in a Canadian Naval Task Group protected the left flank of the USN carriers launching airstrikes into Iraq.

Currently, a Canadian Major-General is the 2nd In Command of III Corps in Iraq.

We were there and we were there big.

troung
17 Jun 05,, 20:15
Her daddy ain't coming back home because American politicians sent him to carry out coups in places like Venezuela.

So you have no ideas how coups work yet you talk out of your ass?


Why was Chavez targeted like this? Apparently, he is the first president of Venezuela that cares about the 60% of the population that lives in slums and shantytowns. Venezuela apparently had been ruled by the ultra-rich descendants of the white plantation owners since independence. In an country where there are cardboard cities, the elite whites drive around in Porsches and own the majority of the land and siphon off billions of dollars from the national oil revenue. And of course, the free-marketers now call him a communist. Ah well, at least that's better than being called a capitalist.

He is very similar to Sukrano and Sihanouk, both tried to piss off the USA, both pissed off their militaries, both ruined their own economies by their silly policies and both fell in coups. And his firing generals to get a cabinet willing to waste money on phallic symbols just makes another coup more likely.

The point is he actually wants trouble...


Chavez, elected twice to presidency, wanted to change this system around and of course, the upper crust wasn't too pleased with this and America was even less pleased with this, especially moves like increasing taxes on the oil and a ban on oil privatization (which means Exxon can't suck the country dry) so that he could pay for.... god forbid.... healthcare and schools.

Actually he is buying scores of weapons while on the same hand ruining his own economy. The middle class is dying off there. And the weapons not for defense but to try and show off, yeah and he is backing the FARC...

Stick to talking about how India should make bases in PNG... ;) ... jackass...

bull
18 Jun 05,, 07:09
I ask you again, if you are Canadian then why are you defending America? If you talking about Canadian war dead, I have all the respect in the world for them.

But when I start talking about Americans pushing their agenda, you tell me that I have no concept of loyalty or honour. I don't quite understand why you dragging in a Canadian KIA into discussions about American imperialism. What pray tell, does a Canadian soldier who died in battle on a UN sanctioned peace-keeping operation have to do with American war dead who were sent by their politicians to interfere in places like Vietnam, Iraq and Venezuela? Don't insult a Canadian soldier who actually died for something of value like this. I know you are trying to illustrate that you have learnt from experience about honour and loyalty, but what does that have to do with American policies?

I pity the American war dead in Iraq. They are dying for economic reasons, and for absolutely nothing to do with freedom or protection of the American state. You are dragging in things that are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Furthermore, you completely ignored my requests to show that America's actions are justified. Which you would, since their actions cannot be justified.

And like I told highsea, I couldn't care less if a right-winger moron thinks that I'm to be ignored. Especially since I wasn't even arguing against Canada (I live here for God's sake), I was arguing against American policies.

US soldiers are died in iraq for US interests iand i consider that has honour.So what economic reasons are of no interest to you, do you consider ecenomic reasons good enough to die for.It is as worthy as dieing for a piece of land.

Officer of Engineers
18 Jun 05,, 14:02
I was going to ignore this but this is too much. I insult my people? You're one piece of garbage, Rani. You have absolutely no idea about leadership. You have no concept of responsibility. You have no concept of honour. None of duty. And a big fat zero about loyalty.

I ain't going to waste my time explaining things to you but the American combat leaders in Iraq care as much for their people as I do mine. They paid the price and still are paying the price. They may or may not agree with the mission but they certainly are trying to carry out their mission with the greatest sense of honour and dedication that I've ever seen. They have not shirk their duties and the loyalty displayed is far above your pathetic commie leanings.

I would get beaten walking into a university? Kid, get real. None of you got the guts. I've walked through UT, UW, UWL, QU in Class As and battle dress and everytime, all of you have given me a wide birth. I've stared down entire tank armies and I ripped AK-47s out of hands of guys a hell of alot tougher than a bunch of kids with books.

You are a loon. I doubt the Indian Army would take you. Certainly the good Captain and the good Brigadier is nothing like you. You don't measure up.

Amled
19 Jun 05,, 01:31
...I think that an entire ethnic group being gassed by Iraq would be classified as its 'existence is threatened'. Not that you Americans would care, considering how you encouraged them to revolt during the Gulf War, promising to get rid of Saddam, and then left them to rot and to be gassed.

You say that you are a student. Of what? Certainly not current affairs or history. The gas attack you are refering to occured 2 years before the first Gulf War. Get it 2 years!! So try to get your facts straight befor slinging them around, else they have a bad habit of coming around and biting your ass!

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemsaringas.html

As for you saying:

Öbut I believe in drawing a line somewhere. I don't believe in winning at any and at all costs...
I know that I've taken the quote out of context. But if you have an basic ingrained attitude like this, it's hard to see how you can shed them, if or when you enter military service. Therefore I still pity any men you might one day command, because noble self-rightious sentiments like these will most likely get some of them killed.

Rani Lakshmibai
19 Jun 05,, 01:34
I respect Canadian soldiers, this is what I said about them before:

If you talking about Canadian war dead, I have all the respect in the world for them.

That being said, I think you are not doing them justice but trying to justify a unjust war in Iraq. I have no doubt that the vast majority of American military personnel COs care for their men. I take offense at American foriegn and military policy like the Monroe Doctrine for instance. Why are you taking offense at my protests of policy? Policy is decided largely by politicians not military commanders. As such, I don't make it my business insult the military of any country. I believe that I have said this repeatedly.

You are confusing my protest of American policy as a direct insult on the military. In fact, you persistently take my criticisms of American policy as attacks on the militaries of the respective countries. Let me repeat, I don't care to criticize any military unless they commit war crimes, either American or Canadian. Are you aware that I considered joining the American military for a standard four year term? But I didn't want to aid in the rape and looting of other countries so I dropped the idea.

If you think otherwise, go over my posts and show me where I proceeded to insult or attack the military.


I would get beaten walking into a university?

I was exaggerating and you know it. All Canadian students would respect any Canadian soldier, especially one with such a long military record like yours. But they most certainly would not agree with the war in Iraq. They would respect any soldier that served there since they are merely carrying out their duties. As do I. But if you tried to justify the war by talking about freedom and liberty and all that crap, they would politely disagree with you. I'm sure you noticed certain very large protests in Canada during the time of the Iraq war. Students formed a large portion of those protesters.


147 Canadian Forces personel participated directly in the ground invasion of Iraq. 2700 Canadians in a Canadian Naval Task Group protected the left flank of the USN carriers launching airstrikes into Iraq.

Currently, a Canadian Major-General is the 2nd In Command of III Corps in Iraq.

We were there and we were there big.

Where exactly did you get this number? Do you have any links? As far as I know, the Canadian Prime Minister would have committed political suicide by committing Canadian troops during the Iraq war. In fact, he was under severe pressure not to commit troops during the Iraq war, just as he was forced to decline joining in the American Star Wars program later on, and I remember the headlines in the Toronto Star, the National Post, the Globe and Mail.... virtually every single paper in the country screaming that the PM had decided not to commit troops to the war.

If Canada did commit troops, it wasn't done with the mandate of the Canadian people and done just to appease the Americans. Either that or the troops were sent their after Bush declared the war phase as being 'over' or were sent there under the auspices of NATO. At any rate, I would hardly call the committing of 2500 naval personnel, one rifle company and a Major General as being 'big' considering that Americans have several Corps (150,000 to 200,000 men)deployed there.

And I consider the word communist to be a complement (but if you want to really complement me, call me a socialist which is what I really am) so you'd have to call me a capitalist to set my blood boiling. There's nothing, absolutely nothing lower than a pure capitalist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So you have no ideas how coups work yet you talk out of your ass?

I'm well informed on how coups usually happen. They are usually carried out with CIA personnel co-operating with the local wealthy and their goons as opposed to extensive deployment of military personnel. A good example would be coup in Venezuela in 2002. But how about the invasion of Panama to depose Noriega? You wanna bet that quite a few American daddies didn't come back from the coup thanks to the American political decision to topple Noriega? How about Iraq to depose of Saddam? The count's a 1000+ and rising with no end in sight. Neither of these are coups in the strictest sense of the word but the Americans involved themselves in order to get rid of the leaders of these countries so I guess you could call them coups.


He is very similar to Sukrano and Sihanouk, both tried to piss off the USA, both pissed off their militaries, both ruined their own economies by their silly policies and both fell in coups. And his firing generals to get a cabinet willing to waste money on phallic symbols just makes another coup more likely.

The point is he actually wants trouble...

Have you ever watched anything besides Fox News or read anything besides the New York Times? Both of these repeat word for word what the US State Department tells them. And the US State Dept. is hardly what I would call a unbiased source. It's a mouthpiece of the American right-wingers, especially the ones that are in power.

I suggest you do some real research. Before Chavez took over, the oligarchy that held power with American connivance stole billions of dollars from the sale of oil to maintain their lavish lifestyles while 60% of the population lived below the poverty line. Count that: 60% under the poverty line thanks to successive dicators following American endorsed neo-liberal policy during the 80's. The oligarchy was favoured by the Americans because they allowed privatization - basically allowed American oil companies to buy up capital and refineries in the country and sell oil without paying a single cent in taxes.

Chavez is the first person of native origin (the oligarchy is mostly composed of the descendants of rich white plantation owners) who held power in country and he is actually imposing taxes on American refineries and restricting insane amounts of privatization, now establishing schools and hospitals for the poor that were non-existent under the oligarchy. Of course, the Bush administration actually hit the ceiling over that (the privatisation limitations and taxes on American oil) and tried to overthrow him. And accuse the man who won 2 general elections and 6 referendums as being a dictator.


Actually he is buying scores of weapons while on the same hand ruining his own economy. The middle class is dying off there. And the weapons not for defense but to try and show off, yeah and he is backing the FARC...

And now Chavez is buying up assault rifles and choppers and talking about developing nuclear weapons with Iran. He's also starting to sell oil to the Chinese to reduce dependence on American sales. Are you shocked? The man was abducted from his own home by CIA and local wealthy conspirators. If it were me, I'd have done a lot more than that to the scum that had to gall to interfere in my country's affairs, going so far as to try and assasinate me.

Why would he do that? Well, it's simple. Ever since the Vietnam War, America hasn't got the balls to attack any country that might cause too many body bags to come back home. The only exception being Iraq but that's because the moronic politicians were under the idiotic impression that they would be welcomed with garlands. Go back over the lists of invasions and show me the name of one major country that posed a threat (with nukes) to America being invaded. You won't find one. Like all cowards, they attack and manipulate only those countries that don't pose a serious threat. Ones that can't do much in retaliation. China poses a much greater threat than Iraq but do you see America invading them? Of course not. If America tried to invade China, they'd be buying up thousands of square kilometres to build Arlingtons. If they survived the nuclear firestorm.

You don't like me saying that? Well, the day that America actually attacks a major country that has nuclear weapons, then I'll change that opinion, but until then, I reserve the right to hold it.

But for now, developing nukes is Chavez's best bet. I'd like to see if America would have the balls invade Venezuela if it can turn Miami into a nuclear wasteland. That and distributing AK-47s among the local populace like he's doing now so that the he can turn Venezuela into another Iraq, which would bog down the US military, destroy morale, turn the World political climate increasingly against the Americans etc. An excellent strategy if he wants to survive. After spending years being raped by neo-liberals set up by the Americans I'm sure that the poor who suffered would love to do something about it if the people who are the source of the trouble invaded. And if you thinking Chavez would actually waste his time supporting the FARC, then you've definitely been tuned into CNN and Fox News too long.


Stick to talking about how India should make bases in PNG... ... jackass...

I would love to jackass, but I've been sidetracked by American right-wingers who have been so deluded by CNN that they think America will be around forever and so have been dropping subtle hints that they think that India will be only a minor country compared to America in far future and so will not be able to put bases in SE Asia.


US soldiers are died in iraq for US interests iand i consider that has honour.So what economic reasons are of no interest to you, do you consider ecenomic reasons good enough to die for.It is as worthy as dieing for a piece of land.

Defense of the nation is different from sending troops to rape and loot other countries. That too, small ones that can't really fight back. A fair fight, huh? That's is the epitome of cowardice, if I've ever seen one. The American soldiers may or may not have performed with honour but the American politicians are cowards of the lowest order. Fighting for nothing more than the right to steal what they can. Then privatizing all the industries in the country so that they can 'legitemately' loot the country.

Amled
19 Jun 05,, 02:06
... As such, I don't make it my business insult the military of any country. I believe that I have said this repeatedly...


ÖI don't particularly care about your American war dead.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=6060&page=3&pp=20

Most people would consider a statement like this an insult, would'nt you think?

Rani Lakshmibai
19 Jun 05,, 02:15
Then you would have to take it in context. Go to the thread and read my post in full. My intention was to say that I wasn't so concerned with American war dead as compared to those who suffer under the heel of American neo-colonialism or are caught up in the proxy wars that America runs because at least the American soldiers will be honoured by their people and be given medals and praised for their service. What about those caught in the crossfire? Will America give a medal to the 2-year-old that dies of starvation thanks to the proxy war that America is running? And even if America did, what would be the point?

An insult would be my saying that American soldiers are so-and-so, not saying that I'm not concerned about American war dead.

highsea
19 Jun 05,, 02:30
Will America give a medal to the 2-year-old that dies of starvation thanks to the proxy war that America is running? Like this one?

You are a disgrace. As far as you "considering joining the US Military", you have to be a US citizen ot a legal resident. You are neither. I pity the military that ever accepts you into their ranks.

A U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman treats one of two Iraqi children brought into the Regimental Combat Team 2 Aide Station at Camp Ripper, Al Asad, Iraq, on June 8, 2005. The children were found tied to a cinder block during a house raid in Dhulab, Iraq, by Marines attached to 2nd Marine Division as they conducted counter-insurgency operations with Iraqi Security Forces. DoD photo by Lance Cpl. Shane S. Keller, U.S. Marine Corps.

Rani Lakshmibai
19 Jun 05,, 02:45
You say that you are a student. Of what? Certainly not current affairs or history. The gas attack you are refering to occured 2 years before the first Gulf War. Get it 2 years!! So try to get your facts straight befor slinging them around, else they have a bad habit of coming around and biting your ass!

I'm aware of that. My point is that during the Gulf War, the Americans fed the poor Kurds crap about how they were going to come in a free them. The Kurds revolted but the coalition stopped short of taking Baghdad and toppling Saddam, retreating. Now what do you think Saddam is about to do those who sided with his enemies in what was almost a battle for his very life? America and her partners withdrew knowing very well that Saddam would blow his top and more reprisals would come the Kurds' way.

And America also knew that Saddam had chemical gas and used it on the Kurds before and was looking for an excuse to do it again. What made the Americans think that Saddam wouldn't use it again to teach the Kurds a lesson? The issue is not whether or not Saddam gassed the Kurds after the Gulf War. The issue is that the Americans encouraged the Kurds to rise up knowing that they'd pull back and leave the Kurds to face Saddam's full wrath, which might take the form of chemical gas as Saddam had already displayed a propensity for using it. America was willing to sacrifice thousands of Kurdish men, women and children to a horrible death at the hands of nerve gas as long as the Kurds helped the war effort and lowered American casualties.


I know that I've taken the quote out of context. But if you have an basic ingrained attitude like this, it's hard to see how you can shed them, if or when you enter military service. Therefore I still pity any men you might one day command, because noble self-rightious sentiments like these will most likely get some of them killed.

I believe I already said that I'd like to think that I would do just about anything necessary to ensure my country was safe? Of course, there are lines you don't cross certain lines in war, like those restrictions imposed by Geneva Convention. Or are you implying here that you think American soldiers should disregard the Geneva Convention and engage in torture, rape of minors and adults, killing of unarmed combatants and the like? This are lines that I would be hesitant to cross and the pay off would have to very high indeed for me to engage in such acts.

But don't worry, I won't be surprised if you endorse such acts. After all, you seem to be a right-wing American....



You are a disgrace. As far as you "considering joining the US Military", you have to be a US citizen ot a legal resident. You are neither. I pity the military that ever accepts you into their ranks.

I'm aware of the restrictions, thank you very much. And I'm also aware that normal American soldiers (not the loonies and psychopaths) don't try to cause collateral damage and may engage in humanitarian aid. But again you are confusing American policy with the actions of the military.

American policy requires that Iraq be invaded. How many Iraqi children died because of the invasion? Then American soldiers come along and try to fix things. Here is an example of the results of the American policy that demands that oil supplies be secured especially in the wake of China's moves to secure oil supplies and Venezuela's hostility:

http://theprecipice.org/gallery/iraq/04_12_iraq_b.gif

The picture you posted is an American soldier trying to help a child. What's the point of helping someone after you've bombed them to rubble? How about you Americans adopt a policy that makes sure that your military stays at home unless a real threat to your military security arises? There's no point helping someone in a country you have no right to be in. If American soldiers had gone to Iraq to help Iraqi children without invading them, then it would be something to talk about. But don't invade a country for its oil supplies and then expect the world to be mollified because you release pictures of an American soldier feeding a child. Because you aren't there to help the children. America's primary goal is to secure Iraq's oil supplies.

Amled
19 Jun 05,, 03:37
But don't worry, I won't be surprised if you endorse such acts. After all, you seem to be a right-wing American....

Wrong again! :biggrin: :tongue:
As a matter of fact Iím a Canadian.


srirangan - How the hell did a India-China thread turn into this?

You're utterly correct. I do apologize for pooping on your thread. :redface:

Rani Lakshmibai
19 Jun 05,, 03:44
Wrong again!
As a matter of fact Iím a Canadian.

Well, I did say that you "seem" to be a right-wing American. Not that there's any way to verify your claim of being Canadian. You could be lying for all I know. Strange, there aren't too many Canadians who support American policies. Oh well, it's just my luck that a minority of the population comes up to support the right-winger Americans.

And don't apologize to srirangan. I'm pretty sure that this is my thread :biggrin:. It's been hijacked because American right-wingers can't admit that America might not be a dominant power in the future.

Leader
19 Jun 05,, 04:29
Well, I did say that you "seem" to be a right-wing American. Not that there's any way to verify your claim of being Canadian. You could be lying for all I know.
Is the only possibility in your mind that he is lying? You couldn't possibly be wrong could you?

Amled
19 Jun 05,, 04:37
Not that there's any way to verify your claim of being Canadian. You could be lying for all I know. Strange, there aren't too many Canadians who support American policies. Oh well, it's just my luck that a minority of the population comes up to support the right-winger Americans.

Youíre a brave man Rani, sitting at your computer, separated from me by thousands of miles, and implying that Iím a liar. That takes real guts. I donít consider myself a violent man, but I donít like being labelled a liar even if itís only by some weasely innuendo. If circumstances were different I would make you retract your allegation.
You see I am a Canadian. Naturalized itís true. But from what I know that still counts.
As for non-Americans finding your thread offensive, well BS does have a certain odour that transcends nationalities.

Leader
19 Jun 05,, 05:21
Youíre a brave man Rani, sitting at your computer, separated from me by thousands of miles, and implying that Iím a liar. That takes real guts. I donít consider myself a violent man, but I donít like being labelled a liar even if itís only by some weasely innuendo. If circumstances were different I would make you retract your allegation.
You see I am a Canadian. Naturalized itís true. But from what I know that still counts.
As for non-Americans finding your thread offensive, well BS does have a certain odour that transcends nationalities.

Nice! :biggrin:

Rani Lakshmibai
19 Jun 05,, 06:34
Youíre a brave man Rani, sitting at your computer, separated from me by thousands of miles, and implying that Iím a liar. That takes real guts. I donít consider myself a violent man, but I donít like being labelled a liar even if itís only by some weasely innuendo. If circumstances were different I would make you retract your allegation.
You see I am a Canadian. Naturalized itís true. But from what I know that still counts.
As for non-Americans finding your thread offensive, well BS does have a certain odour that transcends nationalities.

You take offense at this? Why? I don't even know your name and yet you expect me to believe that you are from Canada? This is the internet we are talking about. By its very nature many things on the net are unverifiable. Who you are, where you are from, your name, city, every detail about you is completely falsifiable. You could be exactly who you claim to be or you could be Osama bin Laden for all I know. Under such circumstances you expect me to take you at face value? I did not mean any offense. I wasn't calling you a liar, I'm just saying that is it possible that you might be lying. Who's to stop you? I suppose you haven't heard of pedophiles pretending to be kids in a children's forum? Or men pretending to be women in chat rooms and the like? I suppose you would have me believe whatever these people told me too, would you?

I just don't believe everything I hear. What if I told you I was from Mars? And then blew up when you refused to believe me? Which is exactly what you are doing. Suppose you are Canadian. Exactly how difficult would it be for you to claim that you were American? I can't either prove nor disprove what you said. You are overreacting and your threats are pointless and not enforcable in any case. If we were face-to-face and I told you that you might be lying then you might have a case against my being a pissant bugger. But on the net, my concerns are real.

It seems you right-wingers are deliberately looking to fall off-topic and you assume that I would waste my time insulting you. Perhaps it's because I lean towards the left; right-wingers are known to be extremely hostile towards socialists. This being a forum, you can't do a damn thing to me, you don't even know who I am. So I can call you every name I want if I ever felt like it, right? In fact, now would be a good time to begin, wouldn't it? But you don't see me using an endless list of four-letter words, do you? Let me put it clearly just so that we have no more problems on this count: I'm here to find out what makes you right-wingers tick, and to find out more about matters that interest me and I have no time to waste typing up insults. The only time I can see myself breaking this general rule is when some knucklehead sees fit to flame me, at which point I might retaliate.

If you have time to waste reading in non-existent insults into my posts, then please do. I have little time to play your idiotic games. The Colonel is apparently under the impression that I'm putting down Canadian soldiers and you think that I would think that I would waste ten minutes calling you a liar. Did you ever pause to wonder why I would waste my time like that? Apparently not. I should feel insulted that you would accuse me of petty and utterly pointless slander.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if there is some collective sickness affecting you right-wingers.


As for non-Americans finding your thread offensive, well BS does have a certain odour that transcends nationalities.

I notice that haven't launched any counter arguments. Is this your way of venting your frustration? If so, I'm not impressed. Perhaps you could point out to where my claims are false or as you put it 'BS'. I would love a chance to battle-test my theories and make them more waterproof. If you cannot give any constructive criticism, I urge you to remain silent and go peruse some other thread instead of venting your anger by reading insults into my posts.

Leader
19 Jun 05,, 06:45
You take offense at this? Why? This is the internet we are talking about. By its very nature many things on the net are unverifiable. Who you are, where you are from, your name, city, every detail about you is completely falsifiable. You could be exactly who you claim to be or you could be Osama bin Laden for all I know. Under such circumstances you expect me to take you at face value? I did not mean any offense. I wasn't calling you a liar, just saying that is it possible that you might be lying. Who's to stop you? I suppose you haven't heard of pedophiles pretending to be kids in a children's forum? Or men pretending to be women in chat rooms and the like? I suppose you would have me believe whatever these people told me too, would you?

I just don't believe everything I hear. What if I told you I was from Mars? And then blew up when you refused to believe me? Which is exactly what you are doing. Suppose you are Canadian. Exactly how difficult would it be for you to claim that you were American? I can't either prove nor disprove what you said. You are overreacting and your threats are pointless and not enforcable in any case. If we were face-to-face and I told you that you might be lying then you might have a case against my being a pissant bugger. But on the net, my concerns are real.

It seems you right-wingers are deliberately looking to fall off-topic and you assume that I would waste my time insulting you. Perhaps it's because I lean towards the left; right-wingers are known to be extremely hostile towards socialists. This being a forum, you can't do a damn thing to me, you don't even know who I am. So I can call you every name I want if I ever felt like it, right? In fact, now would be a good time to begin, wouldn't it? But you don't see me using an endless list of four-letter words, do you? Let me put it clearly just so that we have no more problems on this count: I'm here to find out what makes you right-wingers tick, and to find out more about matters that interest me and I have no time to waste typing up insults. The only time I can see myself breaking this general rule is when knucklehead sees fit to flame me, at which point I might retaliate.

If you have time to waste reading in insults into my posts, then please do. I have little time to play your idiotic games. The Colonel is apparently under the impression that I'm putting down Canadian soldiers and you think that I would think that I would waste ten minutes calling you a liar. Did you ever pause to wonder why I would waste my time like that? Apparently not.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if there is some collective sickness affecting you right-wingers.
I love how you talk about "right-wingers" are if we are all one person. Of course from your perspective I guess we all could be. I don't think you see people you disagree with as actual people. After all, you seem to hold so called "right wingers" in great contempt. You say we probably have some kind of sickness. Maybe we should be locked up or send to a re-education camp, right?

Rani Lakshmibai
19 Jun 05,, 07:14
I love how you talk about "right-wingers" are if we are all one person. Of course from your perspective I guess we all could be. I don't think you see people you disagree with as actual people. After all, you seem to hold so called "right wingers" in great contempt. You say we probably have some kind of sickness. Maybe we should be locked up or send to a re-education camp, right?

The "Right-wingers" are not a single entity but a group of individuals whose view-point is more or less similar. No, I don't have much respect for right-wingers because a large portion of right-wingers are pro-capitalistic, an economic system which I detest, especially in its purest form. Their tendency to have a human-centric view of the environment and thus treat it as being expendable is also another feature that I dislike.

Make no mistake, in my utopian idea of an economic model many capitalistic features are present in it especially entrepreneurship and the like but the one thing I detest about capitalism is that it glorifies money above all else and takes away the human dignity from those people who don't possess large amounts of it. They do this by measuring the value of everybody in society by their contributions of productivity. The necessitty of doing this is another matter, but this entire system is motivated by extreme greed. Modest amounts of greed and selfishness are good, but when you have large amounts of it.... well you wind up with countries like America that invade and loot other countries under flimsy pretexts. In fact, they try to justify it using rationalistic means including coming up with philosophical theories that glorify selfishness. They even have a name for this theory: Ethical Egoism.

And I wish you would be more careful about judging my tendency to see all right-wingers as the one and same. If I am guilty of this (which I admit I probably am), then remember that many American right-wingers treat lefties with utter contempt and equate them with traitors to their country. And I said that you right-wingers might have some kind of disease only because I've been insulted by two right-wingers in just as many days because they have seen and read things into my posts that were not there. This led me to wonder whether right-wingers hate lefties so much that they have to resort to irrelevant personal attacks.

Rani Lakshmibai
19 Jun 05,, 07:22
You know, this thread has long since lost its focus and is now degenerating into a bunch of idiots flaming each other (including myself here, nobody start another flame war over how arrogant I am or anything). If nobody can offer any serious counter arguments to my points about the Venezuelan coup and/or the Iraq war, I'm not going to bother wasting my time on this thread any more.

bull
19 Jun 05,, 07:33
You know, this thread has long since lost its focus and is now degenerating into a bunch of idiots flaming each other (including myself here, nobody start another flame war over how arrogant I am or anything). If nobody can offer any serious counter arguments to my points about the Venezuelan coup and/or the Iraq war, I'm not going to bother wasting my time on this thread any more.

Well abt US dumping kurds,that was purely political.nothing do with honour or rpide but pure safeguard of interests.

If you cannot take care of yourself then world cant help;This applies for kurds also.

And if comes to inncocents being killedin iraq,i have my reservations abt it.

Rani Lakshmibai
19 Jun 05,, 07:46
I don't mind if America hadn't freed the Kurds. It is the right of a nation to decide if they will help other downtrodden people.

But how can you tell a group of people who have been suppressed and gassed such a blatant lie that would result in more of them being killed? Because they trusted you and took America at its word? That is just cruel. That kind of cruelty is what I cannot stand about America. America and her coalition partners would easily topple Saddam, even if he used his much vaunted WMDs. There was no need to lie to the Kurds and get their hopes up, and get them to move a few hundred ragged fighters into the attack. Their contribution to the war was very little because they didn't have the capacity to do any more. You don't take advantage of people who are down, you hear me? (Addressed to everyone) That's cowardly and downright spiteful.

bull
19 Jun 05,, 08:00
You don't take advantage of people who are down, you hear me? (Addressed to everyone) That's cowardly and downright spiteful.

Thats 21st century politics for you,you ought to know how to save your ass.America is not going to come running when you get your ass whipped.

troung
19 Jun 05,, 12:03
But how can you tell a group of people who have been suppressed and gassed such a blatant lie that would result in more of them being killed? Because they trusted you and took America at its word? That is just cruel. That kind of cruelty is what I cannot stand about America. America and her coalition partners would easily topple Saddam, even if he used his much vaunted WMDs. There was no need to lie to the Kurds and get their hopes up, and get them to move a few hundred ragged fighters into the attack. Their contribution to the war was very little because they didn't have the capacity to do any more. You don't take advantage of people who are down, you hear me? (Addressed to everyone) That's cowardly and downright spiteful.

Actually he gassed them back in the 1980s before ODS...


And now Chavez is buying up assault rifles and choppers and talking about developing nuclear weapons with Iran.

And firing his own generals to do so and spending lots of tax payer money to try and flex... he wants the attention...


And if you thinking Chavez would actually waste his time supporting the FARC, then you've definitely been tuned into CNN and Fox News too long.

Seeing as Colombia is making the noise about it...


They are usually carried out with CIA personnel co-operating with the local wealthy and their goons as opposed to extensive deployment of military personnel. A good example would be coup in Venezuela in 2002. But how about the invasion of Panama to depose Noriega? You wanna bet that quite a few American daddies didn't come back from the coup thanks to the American political decision to topple Noriega? How about Iraq to depose of Saddam?

No...


I would love to jackass, but I've been sidetracked by American right-wingers who have been so deluded by CNN that they think America will be around forever and so have been dropping subtle hints that they think that India will be only a minor country compared to America in far future and so will not be able to put bases in SE Asia.

Sure...


You don't like me saying that? Well, the day that America actually attacks a major country that has nuclear weapons, then I'll change that opinion, but until then, I reserve the right to hold it.

We were eyeball to eye ball with the Soviets... they blinked....


Have you ever watched anything besides Fox News or read anything besides the New York Times? Both of these repeat word for word what the US State Department tells them. And the US State Dept. is hardly what I would call a unbiased source. It's a mouthpiece of the American right-wingers, especially the ones that are in power.

Go figure but I don't watch Fox much...

bull
19 Jun 05,, 12:55
We were eyeball to eye ball with the Soviets... they blinked....
...


When was that???

Amled
19 Jun 05,, 15:48
...you could be Osama bin Laden for all I know.
CursesÖmy covers blown! :eek:


If we were face-to-face and I told you that you might be lying then you might have a case against my being a pissant bugger.
For once we are in agreement!


I notice that haven't launched any counter arguments.
I have, as when you denigrate the American war dead, or your insistance on the Coallition leaving the Kurds to be gassed by Saddam. When the fact is that the gassing of the Kurds occured prior to the First Gulf War, and afterwards with the no-fly-zone being enforced no Kurds were gassed again. Also after Saddam was removed from power after the Second Gulf war, he would never again be able to order the gassing of Kurds.



Originally Posted by bull - When was that???

Berlin Blockade 48-49
Cuban Missil Crisis '62

Officer of Engineers
19 Jun 05,, 19:42
Therefore I still pity any men you might one day command, because noble self-rightious sentiments like these will most likely get some of them killed.

He won't get the chance. No army would take him.

highsea
19 Jun 05,, 19:48
He won't get the chance. No army would take him.I imagine the palestinians would be happy to have him as a human shield, ala Rachel Corrie.

Leader
20 Jun 05,, 04:48
The "Right-wingers" are not a single entity but a group of individuals whose view-point is more or less similar.

Not true. My point of view is very deferent to the other "right-wingers" in this thread and on this board, but you have managed to fit everyone you disagree with into a nice neat box. Makes life easier when you can do that.


No, I don't have much respect for right-wingers because a large portion of right-wingers are pro-capitalistic, an economic system which I detest, especially in its purest form. Their tendency to have a human-centric view of the environment and thus treat it as being expendable is also another feature that I dislike.

Maybe over time you will begin to see your political opponents as wrong, but not evil or worthy of contempt based purely on their beliefs. Or maybe not.


Make no mistake, in my utopian idea of an economic model many capitalistic features are present in it especially entrepreneurship and the like but the one thing I detest about capitalism is that it glorifies money above all else and takes away the human dignity from those people who don't possess large amounts of it. They do this by measuring the value of everybody in society by their contributions of productivity. The necessitty of doing this is another matter, but this entire system is motivated by extreme greed. Modest amounts of greed and selfishness are good, but when you have large amounts of it.... well you wind up with countries like America that invade and loot other countries under flimsy pretexts. In fact, they try to justify it using rationalistic means including coming up with philosophical theories that glorify selfishness. They even have a name for this theory: Ethical Egoism.

You state things that aren't true and make arguments that aren't supported by any kind of reason or facts.


And I wish you would be more careful about judging my tendency to see all right-wingers as the one and same. If I am guilty of this (which I admit I probably am),

You say I should "be more careful" and then say I was probably right. When you prove I'm wrong about something I'll "be more careful."


then remember that many American right-wingers treat lefties with utter contempt and equate them with traitors to their country.

I'm not responsible for other peoples statements.


And I said that you right-wingers might have some kind of disease only because I've been insulted by two right-wingers in just as many days because they have seen and read things into my posts that were not there. This led me to wonder whether right-wingers hate lefties so much that they have to resort to irrelevant personal attacks.

Maybe if you didn't treat them with such contempt, they would be friendlier.

Leader
20 Jun 05,, 04:50
I'm not going to bother wasting my time on this thread any more.

No objection here.

Samudra
20 Jun 05,, 05:26
Okay , another thread that needs a 'Thread Locked' icon to its left.
What say , Mods ?

Rani Lakshmibai
20 Jun 05,, 05:46
No objection here.


Okay , another thread that needs a 'Thread Locked' icon to its left.
What say , Mods ?

Agreed. This thread has gone on for far too long for too little reason. THREAD CLOSED! At least as far as I'm concerned.

Jay
20 Jun 05,, 09:19
Great, then stop posting here, atleast others can have a decent conversation.

bull
20 Jun 05,, 09:43
Great, then stop posting here, atleast others can have a decent conversation.

Dont insult anybody here.

You have the pefect right to push that ignore button if you dont want to hear him or reply to him.

highsea
20 Jun 05,, 10:22
Dont insult anybody here. I think that works both ways, Bull. Give respect if you wish to receive it. So far, Rani hasn't shown a grasp of that concept.

Jay
20 Jun 05,, 11:36
Dont insult anybody here.

You have the pefect right to push that ignore button if you dont want to hear him or reply to him.

You talking to me??

He didnt want to post here, so I said great!! so when/where did I insult him?? :confused:

bull
20 Jun 05,, 12:03
You talking to me??

He didnt want to post here, so I said great!! so when/where did I insult him?? :confused:

SMART!!!

Jay
20 Jun 05,, 12:07
SMART!!!

xcuse me?? As I asked, did you talk to me??

bull
20 Jun 05,, 12:13
xcuse me?? As I asked, did you talk to me??

Yes Mr Jay XXX,
i was speaking to you sir.

Jay
20 Jun 05,, 13:03
go back and read my post again, and then read your reply. Tell me if it makes sense! ;)

bull
20 Jun 05,, 13:13
Great, then stop posting here, atleast others can have a decent conversation .

I was referring to that.

Jay
20 Jun 05,, 13:25
yeah, and I dont see anything wrong in that.

If he wants to stop posting, let him, but others will indeed continue the discussion. Just becoz he stops posting in this thread doesnt mean that it should be locked, and all others shud be mute spectators.

Its insanely boring when you say the capitalist american forces are always responsible for the world misery. Thats why I said atleast others can have a decent conversation.

troung
21 Jun 05,, 03:52
Yeah so I was playing cards with the devil last night and I stopped looked over the table and said... "You ain't got **** on us"...

troung
21 Jun 05,, 03:54
I wonder what M-21 thinks about taking part in a coup in Panama....

lemontree
21 Jun 05,, 04:37
I wonder what M-21 thinks about taking part in a coup in Panama....
It does'nt matter what he thought. He was in the army and you obey orders there...
Thinking is what is done by journalists and the peaceniks.

troung
21 Jun 05,, 04:38
I know.

I had just that it was funny to call the invasion of Panama a coup... ;)

bull
21 Jun 05,, 07:35
THREAD WAS ON South-east Asia: Indo-Chinese Flashpoint?

Beijing already has set up electronic eavesdropping posts at Gwadar in the country's southwest corner, the part nearest the Persian Gulf. The post is monitoring ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Sea, the report said.
Other "pearls" in the sea-lane strategy include:
ē Bangladesh: Chittagong.
ē Burma:
ēCambodia:
ēSouth China Sea: "project air and sea power" from the mainland and Hainan Island. China recently upgraded a military airstrip on ***** Island and increased its presence through oil drilling platforms and ocean survey ships.
ēThailand:


The report reflects growing fears in the Pentagon about China's long-term development. Many Pentagon analysts believe China's military buildup is taking place faster than earlier estimates, and that China will use its power to project force and undermine U.S. and regional security.

"China ... is looking not only to build a blue-water navy to control the sea lanes, but also to develop undersea mines and missile capabilities to deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from potential threats, including the U.S. Navy, especially in the case of a conflict with Taiwan," the report said.

Chinese weapons for sea-lane control include new warships equipped with long-range cruise missiles, submarines and undersea mines, the report said. China also is buying aircraft and long-range target acquisition systems, including optical satellites and maritime unmanned aerial vehicles.

The focus on the naval buildup is a departure from China's past focus on ground forces, the report said.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jun 05,, 08:28
Really, really, really overblown.

Samudra
21 Jun 05,, 08:33
optical satellites

What is that ?

highsea
21 Jun 05,, 08:34
I hope they don't put any of those inflatable DF-31's there, that would really upset the balance of power in the region... :tongue:

highsea
21 Jun 05,, 08:37
optical satellitesWhat is that ?What is an optical satellite? Smile, you're on candid camera.

bull
21 Jun 05,, 09:19
What is an optical satellite? Smile, you're on candid camera.

I posted this article on a very serious note.Oops you all turned into a Jimcarry movie.My mistake!!!

Well i have my own reservations on how much they can grow.But china has the money and the will to do it.So whats going to stop them.

If i am not mistaken with a decent navy china will be able to make power projection in SE asian seas incl malacca streets.Isnt it.

Dont ask me what a decent Navy is???I think a few destroyers,frigates and good submarines ......err......am i right.

A true ocean going navy would require ships which are nuclear powered.So that they can remian in ocean for many many days.

Jay
21 Jun 05,, 09:22
Dont ask me what a decent Navy is???I think a few destroyers,frigates and good submarines ......err......am i right.
No, India and China has them already. Read about Japan, Singapore, Indonesia and USN's 7th fleet capability in that area.


A true ocean going navy would require ships which are nuclear powered.So that they can remian in ocean for many many days.
China already has them, still that doesnt make them ocean going blue water navy.

Samudra
21 Jun 05,, 09:49
What is an optical satellite? Smile, you're on candid camera

Never heard of the term 'optical' satellite.Why wont they call it Recon/Imaging/Spy Satelitte ?

I guess that must be one of the virtues of translating from Chinese to English.
Throw a stupid word in.Sit back and hope that your reader gets scared ! :rolleyes:

Srirangan
21 Jun 05,, 10:14
Rofl!

bull
21 Jun 05,, 10:26
No, India and China has them already. Read about Japan, Singapore, Indonesia and USN's 7th fleet capability in that area.


China already has them, still that doesnt make them ocean going blue water navy.

R u sure chian has nuclear powered ships???I heard they are trying to and failed and the process is on.I think it was discussed in this forum itself.

Jay
21 Jun 05,, 10:49
I meant they have nuclear powered subs, not ships or CVBG's.

bull
21 Jun 05,, 12:01
I meant they have nuclear powered subs, not ships or CVBG's.

R u sure,i have heard thatb they met with some probs with that.

Jay
21 Jun 05,, 12:18
Yes, they have SSBN's.

bull
21 Jun 05,, 13:24
Yes, they have SSBN's.

Ok you are correct i just went back and searched for the same.they seems to have 5.I was ignorant.the failure that was reported was about the new sub which they are trying to develop independtly.

5 nuke powered sub is a good force to reckon with.So presumably with sucha force s chiansea would be a no patrol zone for other navies?

India is rumoured to have acquired 2 akulas recently,if yes india might keep it under the caprpet right,i mean the news.Bcoz publicaly announcing it might have its own repurcassions.

Officer of Engineers
21 Jun 05,, 13:26
The Chinese currently have 1 SSBN (the obsolete XIA) tied up a dry dock, the other 093 going under a shake down.

Jay
21 Jun 05,, 13:43
Yes, just becoz they have a SSBN doesnt mean that they can rule South China sea. As none of them are sea worthy :), read Colonel comments above.

China will need a LOT more than couple nuclear powered boats/ships to rule South China sea.

highsea
21 Jun 05,, 16:43
Believe the new SSBN is type 094. Japanese media reported a missile test last week, believed the JL-2. This would have been from the 094 SSBN, presumably.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20050618wo42.htm

What do you make of this one, OOE? Surface launch probably?

troung
22 Jun 05,, 01:11
Now if America had a reason to behave like this towards Venezuela, if Venezuela posed a legitimate threat, then I would have no problem with America making war. Heck, I'd come over and help you kill the Venezuelans.

Forgot this one...

Hugo is trying to claim the Essequibo which is a large part of Guyana. He is handing over oil conessions to companies dispite the fact it is in Guyana. There is a risk that he could attack Guyana, a sovierin nation, to rip off a part. You see to rule off smoke and mirrors you need a smoke screen.

Amled
22 Jun 05,, 02:04
Hugo is trying to claim the Essequibo which is a large part of Guyana. He is handing over oil conessions to companies dispite the fact it is in Guyana. There is a risk that he could attack Guyana, a sovierin nation, to rip off a part. You see to rule off smoke and mirrors you need a smoke screen.

Strange deja vķ feeling to this.
Saddam and Kuwait in back in '90, with him laying claim to Kuwait in order to grab its oil fields.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jun 05,, 14:50
Believe the new SSBN is type 094. Japanese media reported a missile test last week, believed the JL-2. This would have been from the 094 SSBN, presumably.

My mistake. It is the 094 that I'm thinking of.


http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20050618wo42.htm

What do you make of this one, OOE? Surface launch probably?

Wouldn't make a difference either way. Chinese doctrine is for the SSBN to operate in Chinese waters behind a floatilla screen. The missile may have been designed with a sub-surface launched in mind but given the doctrine, they may have abandonned the idea and go for a surface launch instead considering all the problems they had.

bull
23 Jun 05,, 07:41
My mistake. It is the 094 that I'm thinking of.



Wouldn't make a difference either way. Chinese doctrine is for the SSBN to operate in Chinese waters behind a floatilla screen. The missile may have been designed with a sub-surface launched in mind but given the doctrine, they may have abandonned the idea and go for a surface launch instead considering all the problems they had.

reports have been around saying that india has leased 2 akulas from russia but the GOI kept it under the carpet bcoz of int'l repurcassion.

A nuke submarine has nothing to do with a nuke weapon system,except for the fact that they are designed to stay sub surface for longer periods bcoz they are powered by a nuke reactor... right???

So if that might be the case india accuring akulla might just be rumours!!!What kind of repurcasson ios int'l comunity going to raise.

300KM club missile with which it is armed is nothing so great to recieve "repurcassions".

If indeed what i said above is right,soon india would loose out on subsurface strength to china ,Japan and even pakistan as they are assumed to take more delivery of more akulas.The

Then probably SE asia could be the playing ground for chineese and japaneese navy.

Officer of Engineers
23 Jun 05,, 12:14
reports have been around saying that india has leased 2 akulas from russia but the GOI kept it under the carpet bcoz of int'l repurcassion.

I don't see why it would. It has been done before by the GoI.


A nuke submarine has nothing to do with a nuke weapon system,except for the fact that they are designed to stay sub surface for longer periods bcoz they are powered by a nuke reactor... right???


300KM club missile with which it is armed is nothing so great to recieve "repurcassions".

I doubt you will get the CLUB since that would violate the BM Agreement.


If indeed what i said above is right,soon india would loose out on subsurface strength to china ,Japan and even pakistan as they are assumed to take more delivery of more akulas.

Then probably SE asia could be the playing ground for chineese and japaneese navy.

Why does everybody keeep forgetting about the USN? As good as these other navies are, even combined, they don't measure up to the USN.

bull
23 Jun 05,, 12:20
I don't see why it would. It has been done before by the GoI..

thats exactly the point.So india still hasnt got an hand on to it.So thats leaves IN in a not convincing position.


I doubt you will get the CLUB since that would violate the BM Agreement..

300Km range club..also would be a violation.I thought Bm agrmnt was all abt range an not abt tech.


Why does everybody keeep forgetting about the USN? As good as these other navies are, even combined, they don't measure up to the USN.
they are way too busy in ME asia.

Officer of Engineers
23 Jun 05,, 12:25
thats exactly the point.So india still hasnt got an hand on to it.So thats leaves IN in a not convincing position.

The Chinese are not exactly sitting pretty either. Two KILOS are currently drydocked for new batteries (two just finished).


300Km range club..also would be a violation.I thought Bm agrmnt was all abt range an not abt tech.

300km is the violation.


they are way too busy in ME asia.

The war is over and recent Naval exercises were aimed to demonstrate to the world that they are still a powerful force.

bull
23 Jun 05,, 13:44
The Chinese are not exactly sitting pretty either. Two KILOS are currently drydocked for new batteries (two just finished)..

India needs to take adv of it now,when the others are having difficult time.But it doesnt seem to do that.Thats the whole purpose behind what i say.If india takes the lead now,it will get a good adv to them.


300km is the violation..
More than 300 Km is violation. 300 Km is with in the limit or might make it 290Km. :biggrin:


The war is over and recent Naval exercises were aimed to demonstrate to the world that they are still a powerful force.
I dont think so that anyone doubted that.