Who says they do?Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
then why do they hate US so much ??
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Supporting bums would make me sad. Selfless acts I save the for the deserving.Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
This will be truly selfless act. You are not getting anything in return, not even the happyness
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
...but Kashmir sure was independent (as much as any other british colony was) before 1947.
Isn't that an oxymoron? How could they be independent if they were a colony?
Also, Chechnya must have been free just like XXXstans before USSR came into existance.
Perhaps you are unaware that there was a country called Russia that existed prior to the USSR?
Finally, the mother of all conflicts, Israel, was never a free country.
Never a free country? How about today? And yesterday? And 5 years ago? And how about before the Romans conquered them?
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Isn't that an oxymoron? How could they be independent if they were a colony?
[/QB]
You missed the point... Israel is a free country. None of the other places you mentioned are free. Afghanistan was an independent nation when it was invaded by the USSR. Surely you can see the difference between Israel and Afghanistan on one side and Chechnya and Kasmir on the other.Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Is the basis on which you are supporting Israel not valid for other places???
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
So if we get self satisfaction for a selfless act then it is not selfless?Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
>>Selfless acts I save the for the deserving.
Ya, very true, which will give you self satisfaction. Thats what I am saying
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So if we get self satisfaction for a selfless act then it is not selfless?
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You missed the point... Israel is a free country. None of the other places you mentioned are free. Afghanistan was an independent nation when it was invaded by the USSR. Surely you can see the difference between Israel and Afghanistan on one side and Chechnya and Kasmir on the other.
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
...but Kashmir sure was independent (as much as any other british colony was) before 1947.
Isn't that an oxymoron? How could they be independent if they were a colony?
Also, Chechnya must have been free just like XXXstans before USSR came into existance.
Perhaps you are unaware that there was a country called Russia that existed prior to the USSR?
Finally, the mother of all conflicts, Israel, was never a free country.
Never a free country? How about today? And yesterday? And 5 years ago? And how about before the Romans conquered them?
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
Chechnya history
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0857260.html
Was there an unified country called "Russia" in Roman's period???
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0860838.html
After reading all these posts, I can rightly say one thing..
USA illegally occupied VietNam and (f)USSR and China helped the north vietnamese to free the south vietnam from the invading forces. What a great help from (f)USSR and China. kudos to them.
(f)USSR illegally occupied Afganistan and USA helped the people to liberate their motherland from the invading forces. Great help from USA. Kudos to them.
In both wars, millions of people got killed.
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
What about Tibet? Tibet was completely free of earstwhile China even during the british rule. But Later on China conquered them. They are also fighting for freedom. Why doesn't US do anything about them? On the other hand, US is taking a lot of interest in Taiwan. It is even confronting China about it. Why?
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Please provide link, as you did in other cases, to support case of US illegally occupying Vietnam.
This should be interesting.
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Sorry, its slightly off topic ..
You donate because you feel happyness and it is self interest.
Cool ... everyone lives for himself. Say it and believe it.
No one does favor to any one.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
[QB]
I don't think it takes a geo-political strategical genius to undeerstand that liberating Tibet or preventing China from taking over Tibet would have and would be nearly impossible. China is next to Tibet and has the largest army in the world. The US is quite far away. The task is clearly impossible without risking hundreds of thousands of US causalities and the use of nuclear weapons. The cost is just too high, is that so hard to see?
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
As I understand, losses in Afgn. was one of the chief causes for the breakup of USSR. That's exactly what the US wanted. USSR was blead to death by the US, in a way.
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
hmmm.. I didnt know afganistan is next/close to USA. Damn.. I have to check the world map very often I think.
.
US can take the other super power but it would be nearly impossible to fight with china??? China must be really good.
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0850869.html
and would you be kind enough to provide afgan version of the story? We can start our discussion by comparing both situations and see which force went to the other country against the will of the population.
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
hmmm.. I didnt know afganistan is next/close to USA. Damn.. I have to check the world map very often I think.
US can take the other super power but it would be nearly impossible to fight with china??? China must be really good.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I'm surprised you're wasting your time trying to explain the obvious to somebody who can't grasp the differences in situations between somewhere like Afghanistan and somewhere like Tibet. I would think that the need for risk management being a large factor in international decisions was apparent, but I guess not to everyone.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
The link you gave in no way what so ever says the US occupied Vietnam illegally. The least you can do is find a good communist web site to support you're incredible allegations.
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
You missed the point... the USA didn't fight with the Soviets. That would have been very dangerous. We supplied their enemies through a third country. Practically risk free!Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
Fighting against the world's top nuclear weapon state and well maintained army is less risk than fighting against less developed nation? You are talking about Excellent risk management.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You missed the point... the USA didn't fight with the Soviets. That would have been very dangerous. We supplied their enemies through a third country. Practically risk free!
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Is started with an obnoxious anti-American overgeneralization, mild but sufficient to provoke...
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
We would have very happily have supported the Tibetans but how? You have China on one side and the Himalayas on the other. How do you get arms to those fighting against China? I don't see any way (especially in the 50's) to have kept an army supplied in Tibet.Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
But even if we take it as risk free, dont you think the same anology apply incaseof Tibet. If you read Tibet uprising, you would find good friend(s) for this cause. Was not china enemy at that time (helping and fighting along with northkoreans against Americans?)
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Which reaction?Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
...so Tom's reaction looked unfounded to me, which aggravated... never mind.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
We would have very happily have supported the Tibetans but how? You have China on one side and the Himalayas on the other. How do you get arms to those fighting against China? I don't see any way (especially in the 50's) to have kept an army supplied in Tibet.
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
Where there is a will, there is a way.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The Chinese are not now nor never were comparable to the Soviets. The US and USSR were diametrically opposed to each other in just about every conceivable way. The Soviet empire was expanding and seen as a direct threat. The Chinese on the other hand were contained. The Soviets, unlike the Chinese, were capable of force projection and wielded a large sphere of influence. While we were cool towards the Chinese, we were openly hostile towards the Soviets. Additionally, the military forces and doctrines of the USSR and US were specifically designed to counter the other.
Today, the Chinese are seen as an up-and-coming economic power who it would be advantageous to deal with cordially. So we will try, when possible, to approach problems with them different than we had with the Soviets. As it is more in our interest to be a trading partner with the Chinese, we will handle problems like Tibet differently than we would problems like Afghanistan with the Soviets. We will exert different kinds of pressure when necessary on the Chinese, usually economic incentives, to help reach an agreement on a problem.
We were effectively at war with the USSR, this has never been the case with the Chinese. The comparisons you are trying to make are quite a bit off.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The Chinese are not now nor never were comparable to the Soviets. The US and USSR were diametrically opposed to each other in just about every conceivable way. The Soviet empire was expanding and seen as a direct threat. The Chinese on the other hand were contained. The Soviets, unlike the Chinese, were capable of force projection and wielded a large sphere of influence. While we were cool towards the Chinese, we were openly hostile towards the Soviets. Additionally, the military forces and doctrines of the USSR and US were specifically designed to counter the other.
Today, the Chinese are seen as an up-and-coming economic power who it would be advantageous to deal with cordially. So we will try, when possible, to approach problems with them different than we had with the Soviets. As it is more in our interest to be a trading partner with the Chinese, we will handle problems like Tibet differently than we would problems like Afghanistan with the Soviets. We will exert different kinds of pressure when necessary on the Chinese, usually economic incentives, to help reach an agreement on a problem.
We were effectively at war with the USSR, this has never been the case with the Chinese. The comparisons you are trying to make are quite a bit off.
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
I agree with all your points. Your post effectively says you helped the afgans to defeat your enemy. Nothing more nothing less..
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Do you seriously believe that US had any interest in the well being of Afgn. people? Yes or No. I don't believe it.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
You seem to be missing the fine points though. What you don't seem to get is that the goal of the US during the Cold War was to not only counter the spread of the Soviets but to also spread our own values. Liberating the Afghans from the Soviets, for example, is in line with what our goals were. We not only dealt a blow to Soviet expansion, but we also kept people free from Communism, for what it was worth anyway. Double bonus. Don't you understand that one goal can exist mutually alongside another?
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Soviets lose out in Afghanistan. While freedom and democracy may be ultimately best for all, the truth is that some parts of the world simply can't handle it. We may have assumed too much of people.
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
There is no absolute. Your logic could be as absurd to somebody else as somebody else's logic is to you. You may live in a fool's paradise thinking that you are the best but then not every body is inside your "paradise".