Kassad

Just adding to your discussion: I remember reading that during the 1970's oil embargo, many European countries agreed to allow ME immigrants to immigrate and settle without interference from the their governments. The ME immigrants thus came and created pocket communities. These pocket communities have generated the 1st generation of ME youths, who now are upset about the lack of jobs, and I think, living conditions.

The Muslims may have lost the Battle of Tours in 732, but that didn't stop them

crooks

The "Problem" is grossly exaggerated, especially in the US.

It's terrible to see that a country BUILT on multi-culturalism is so ardently critical of our attempt to do the same .

ExNavyAmerican

I redid this post because the other one was badly done-

Tell that to the left-wingers: they're the ones that don't understand it.

Sorry, but I really don't know what you said there.

Internationalist is the opposite of nationalist: it means your actions are in support of the world before your country: nationalism is the opposite. You're thinking of interventionist, as opposed to protectionist.

They did pick on colonists, but racism was in existence long before Europe even developed as a colonial power. It was practiced in India, China, Greece, Persia, Egypt. I'm so glad I'm a free thinking American because than I'd be spouting out the crap above. Blaming the problems in the world on the West is something I’d expect out of an Iranian, or Chinese. By the way, 2 questions: 1, how did the present inhabitants of India (the Aryans) get there, and 2, why did the pre-colonial caste system have the light colored people in the upper castes, and the dark colored people in the lower castes? Racism maybe? No, west evil, east good-I keep forgetting that.

Who invaded Europe in the 7th century, and later in the 15th century? The Moslems, maybe? The Moslems practiced slavery with blacks, they invaded Europe, and practiced piracy in the Mediterranean. They did most of this way before the crusades, which were justified. Other than the crusades, which were conducted after the Moslems invaded Europe and were used as retaliation against Moslem persecution of Christians in the Holy Land, the Europeans never picked on the Moslems.

What does that mean? I'll take it this way: so you're saying that we shouldn't have fought WW2? We had the moral high ground, so we should have let fascism conquer the world, while we sat around waiting for the lightning of morals to save us. Yeah, that would have worked! What planet are you living on anyway?

Only about 3,000+ Americans have died in Iraq in a period of 4 years. 3,000 people died in one day on 9/11. The economy is doing just fine, thank you very much. Inflation is down, unemployment is down, and the economy is the strongest it’s been since mid-2000.

We brought North Korea to heel, and what back chatting are you referring to? If to the back chatting on Iran’s part, than who cares? They can’t do anything about it, and that’s what matters. If to Chavez, than I say he’s nuts. And I’m serious: he is mental. We haven’t threatened Iran, nor Venezuela yet, though we have warned them, so what threats are you referring to? When you have an internationalist organization such as the UN to hide behind, then it’s easy to be brave.

It doesn’t help the economy. It helps unemployment, because documented citizens can’t get jobs. And it is very important to Americans, and we are starting to deal with it. A fence is supposed to go up, and immigration has decreased with new methods. By the way, helping the economy is much different than making money. Increased taxes obviously help the economy, and that certainly doesn’t help people gain money.

Again, tell it to the liberals. We understand, they don’t.

We have no plans to invade Mexico.

We have the largest economy, one of the richest counties in the world, most powerful military, and the most technologically advanced: we need very little help. Any more help will come from within. If there’s civil war (a very likely eventuality) than we’ll deal with it.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

Ray

[quote=ExNavyAmerican;355067]
I can't be more explicit. Tried my best. Too bad you didn't understand, and anyway, if you didn't, there was no requirement for you to answer. The post was to Gunnut.

Internationalist, to my way of looking, is that one has to worry about the world before one's country.

It means while ensuring one's own interest, one also has the magnanimity to look at the broader picture.

Quite different from narrow-minded chauvinism.

I don't think there is anyone who would rather sell his own country and livelihood for the better of the world.

I know none. You do?


Do amplify.

Perfunctory addressing an issue on a vast subject does not indicate that one has even a modicum of an idea on the issue.

I do hope you understand the difference of caste and race. If not go to the thread on Shilpa Shetty and the Big Brother episode in the British Politics sub forum. Read the posts of Archer and Subba.

Personally I feel that one must take care before opining on issue on which one has little knowledge except from the popular misconceived notions. Hope you understand the British Guilds.

Light colour vs dark colour is another myth!

FYI, the Aryan concept of arriving in India is under debate with historical antecedents.

There are a whole lot of chaps here who understand caste and race etc. Consult them. It will be a good education for you rather and help you to address the issue with some understanding of the same instead of the half baked idea that you generated in your post.

As far as the East being good and the West is evil is it your imagination speaking? I never said it. Or is it your Guilty Conscience speaking?


Have you wondered why they invaded Europe?

Not that I am a great votary for Islam or its exploits.


I have come from outer space if that brings cheer to you. Anything for a stricken soul! After all, Jesus Loves.

As far as I am concerned, WWII is your battle. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me the least except that the treatment to Jews was digusting.

You did not take on Germany because of its horrendous attitude towards the Jews. Go tell that to the Marines (a British term, check its meaning before you once again take off into the blues). The US joined in because of business and economic interests. If indeed the US was so uppity and moral about being worried about the Jews, then they would have joined from the word GO. They did not join from the word GO. So.

Also, read about how Anne Franks family was not allowed to emigrate to the US because of anti Semetic feelings. So much for your love of the Jews. Check the thread on that. So, just don't try to sell off half baked postulations like a snake oil salesman!


So, 3000+ is nothing. Good for you. How many more would make you sit up and wonder?

Indeed the economy is doing fine. That is why the defence preparedness has to be sacrificed for the surge plus. Check the Iraq sub forum.

I am sure the economy is stronger than yesterday too!

You brought nobody to heel. You had to kowtow to the biggest threat to the US - China to get things in your favour. We read and so we are not that gullible to swallow your tales hook, line and sinker. Christ, what do you think we read on - stone tablets and have foot runners bringing us the news!

Why only Chavez and Iran. Read the thread on Bush and his visit to Latin America. More closer to US interest, Pakistan has shown two fingers!

The threat I am referring to is the ones that the US is giving them.

If you cared to read the post carefully instead of taking off into the blue, you would have understood what I had said and not claim you have not understood; as also you would have realised that these nations are showing two fingers to the US and to the threats that the US is giving them at regular intervals. They are laughing up their sleeve since these are hollow threats. Nowhere have I said that these nations are a threat to the US.

Just understand what someone else writes before taking off like a bronco in a rodeo! Bucking and prancing without looking.


Am I to understand that the illegals are not helping the economy?

There are enough threads on the issue which you may refer to.

And how many illegals who are already in the US has been sent back or jailed?
What is the percentage?

How is this connected with the subject? Am I confronting a meandering mind?

Notiwthstanding, I will answer.

I have never claimed that India is the paragon of virtues or the land of milk and honey. Did you find anything to suggest I am seeing pink clouds?

Your wisecrack seems misplaced and has backfired.

Again, it shows' you don't read the posts. You appear to be a 'slap leather' customer outside a saloon. The statement that you find idiotic was in context of Moslems fundamentalists not coming to the US to kill and instead of Americans going off to Iraq where some are killed . Got that?

Now, take a deep breath and re-read the sentence!

You will realise that it was for one part of the sentence since obviously the Americans are not going to Mexico but they sure are going to Iraq! And to surmise otherwise that someone is stating that Americans are going to Mexico instead of Mexican coming to the US is indeed most idiotic. Real idiotic, if I may add!


Oh sure, you are Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay). You are the greatest. No denying that. But sadly, you have forgotten how to apply this greatness to your country's advantage. Bluff and bluster is not the way.

If you did understand how to use your power and greatness Iraq would have collapsed without firing a shot. Iran who have shut up if she knew what was good for her and so on and so forth.

Don't believe that that was possible?

Too bad Kennedy is dead or else he would have told you how.

But history bears witness that USSR buckled to the US without firing a shot! Yes sir, USSR buckled!

That is the use of power without actually using it. That is what is an internationalist i.e. Good of the world without sacrificing one's own country's interest!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Jan

I must have missed that on Bloomberg. Could you elaborate?

__________________
"Just another brick in the wall."

ExNavyAmerican

Ray;

Please excuse if it's out of order of your post-

I didn't mean to insult. A lot of the time I can't express what I want to write.

We are in agreement there.

I'm a nationalist (and no, that doesn't mean I'm a nazi). My country before the world. Period. We are obviously slightly in disagreement as to the meaning of internationalism, but we're close.

None, but I know of some. Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, ect. Those people are exclusively liberal. But you're right, even communists love(d) their country.

No! Why would you say that?!... Does it show?

Of course not, it certainly seemed that you were blaming a lot of the world's problems on the west, but I could have been mistaken. If you have an argument, you're going to have misunderstandings. Anyway, I didn't think you said that, or was even implying that. I was pointing out that It seems to be a predominant feeling in the East, though, and you understand if I'm paranoid. And with that last statement, you've made me more paranoid.

I understood your post, but the way it could be read (i.e. we fighting Mexico) made it foggy. You do have a point, but soldiers are paid to fight, and die. You should understand as I do considering we're both military men. I knew what I was signing on for. It's better to loose 3,000 soldiers (very small amount for 4 years) over 4 years in a foreign country, than have that many more civies die in a shorter time period at home.

It's no secret: they were spreading Islam. What more is there to it?

I'm well aware of the anti-Semite feelings in the U.S. during that time, and I am horrified of how FDR treated them. And anyway, that’s not the point. The point was that the war wasn’t going to be won by sitting around with moral high ground: it needed to be fought.

The point is that every country has problems, and yes the U.S. has very many problems, but it seems that everyone dwells on the problems of the U.S.

It is doing fine. I spelled out how it was doing fine. Look at the statistics: it has grown in the past 5 years. And it entered the fiscal year in relatively strong shape.

Is that, right? I wasn't aware. But the fact remains that it is current historical understanding that the Aryans wiped out the Indus valley people.

I've seen what people say, but it has been my experience that unemployment would be helped if illegals get jobs that unemployed citizens should get.

Of course I do, and I understand that certain groups were excluded from the higher castes because of physical features...

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

I’d go into much deeper arguments, but I have to go to bed.

ExNavyAmerican

The rift between left, and right is growing. There was violence in the 2004 election. It's coming to the point that left and right will have to battle it out. There are no compromises when two sides are so different that it destroys families.

Jan

Doesn't sound too healthy for the economy if what you say is true? Me, I takes tings with a pinch o' salt maan.

If what you believe about the red state-blue state divide is true then the picture isn't as dandy as you claim with the economy and all.

bandwagon

You don't have to put the world before your country. A liberal internationalist engages with the world with the view that it will positively benefit the nation. Put in other words, they view interaction with the world as a non-zero sum game (win-win) whereas conservatives view it as a zero sum game (us or them)

ExNavyAmerican

When the civil war started in 1861, the United States had been having its golden age. Many people didn't believe that there could possibly be a civil war; they kept thinking the problems would blow over: obviously they didn't.
It has nothing to do with the economy, why would you think it does? It has nothing to do with it because the United States is a federal republic that doesn't allow states to control commere, and doesn't allow idealogical divides to destroy the government. However, the rift has become great. Liberals, and conservatives don't even pretend to play nice, nor do they act courteous to one another anymore. Add that with the violence at rallies, demonstrations, and near the polls during the 2004 election, and you have the prelude to a civil war. Now, I know this isn't politically correct thinking, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

We are obviously in diagreement as to the ways to interpret hte meaning of "internationalist". By the way, sometimes it is "us or them". Like in the case of Islamic Jihadists, and the western world: it's either them or us; if you believe otherwise, you've been watching too much 24.

gamercube

No, it's not.

Wrong again.

The theory you are referring to is Max Mueller's Aryan Invasion Theory which has been thoroughly discredited by historians.

1) The coming of the Aryans and the decline of the Indus Valley civilization were unrelated events.

2) The caste system was formed as a type of division of labour, and had nothing to do with skin colour. Later, it was used as an instrument of domination over the lower classes by the Brahmins and Kshatriyas.

I do not wish to hijack this thread so I'll leave it at that. But I suggest you read up on the subject, because the facts are quite contrary to what you believe.

ExNavyAmerican

So are we going to play "is to. is not", or are you going to give something to back that up?

Actually, it's a historical fact. But it depends on which country you're in...

Indian historians? Kind of like the people who say that China discovered American, right?

The Aryans were able to take out the Indus valley civilization because of decline on the part of the Indus valley. It is conjectured that the Aryans might have supplanted them rather than actually conquer them, but it is foggy as to the meaning og "supplant".

I didn't say it wasn't a division of labor: it was. I'm saying that the membership was discrimatory. I'm the one stating historical facts here: you're relating to nationalistic backup to save the image of the ancient Indian civilization.

Too late. You don't start an argument, and then run away.

That's funny.

There are goodfacts, and then there are realfacts. And buddy, the U.S. is not the quasi socialist nation in this picture.

gamercube

ExNavyAmerican,

I do not wish to derail the topic at hand. But please believe me when I say that I have read and had discussions on this topic on a dozen different forums over the last six years. You might not realize this, but the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is extremely controversial in India, because it brings up further grounds of division among a population that is already greatly divided along religious, linguistic, and casteist lines. The foremost proponent of this theory in India (who is also a respected historian), Romila Thapar, has conceded that migration of Aryans (who were a linguistic, rather than a racial group) occurred over a period of time, and their assimilation among the locals is what created what we call today as Hinduism.

It is a vast topic, and I would be happy to debate this in a separate thread, if you decide to start one.

ExNavyAmerican

I'll start that in the History and Warfare forum.

bandwagon