ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Kadagar_AV]

A variation on my second choice. You stayed long enough to change the culture substantially. Caste system largely broken; significant respect for rule of law developed; some belief in democratic institutions. Still too much graft, but not a bad culture shift for roughly one century.

BS.

It wasn't the caste system who started WWII, nor developed atomic bombs. Heck, they don't even do international terrorism.

If that doesn't sell the argument: They have had nothing to do with bank structures nor the IMF.











It seems like a VERY ************************************* cultural shift comparing to that, no?

Or do I read something wrong here?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

BS.

It wasn't the caste system who started WWII, nor developed atomic bombs. Heck, they don't even do international terrorism.

If that doesn't sell the argument: They have had nothing to do with bank structures nor the IMF.











It seems like a VERY ************************************* cultural shift comparing to that, no?

Or do I read something wrong here?

Pan was commenting on the policies and efforts of the British raj, post-mutiny. My comment referred to that. While far from flawless, modern India is a state that emphasizes the rule of law, gives some scope for self determination, etc. India had nothing to do with starting WW2 save as a member of the Empire. Their atomic weapons were developed as a means to counter potential Chinese and Pakistani aggression. I don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India at all.

I think you went off on a tangent here.

[Kadagar_AV]

Pan was commenting on the policies and efforts of the British raj, post-mutiny. My comment referred to that. While far from flawless, modern India is a state that emphasizes the rule of law, gives some scope for self determination, etc. India had nothing to do with starting WW2 save as a member of the Empire. Their atomic weapons were developed as a means to counter potential Chinese and Pakistani aggression. I don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India at all.

I think you went off on a tangent here.

I could pick your whole post apart... But it's to stupid to waste my time on.

In short (as it doesnt really deserve much time).

1. India as part of the British empire and on, is part of the politics. They are thus blamable when it comes to international politics.

2. Atomic weapons are atomic weapons. Heck, I have citizenship in two countries actively NOT going for nuclear weapons, this with Russia/formerly Soviet as neighbor.

3. If you don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India, you are not only ill schooled, you seem to fail at internet.

[Lemur]

I keep thinking about the western heritage, things like the Thirty Years War, which was a bloodbath of Rwandan proportions. We went through this. We did this to ourselves, long before cable news and cell phones. Then I stumbled across this depressing nugget of wisdom:

It took the Thirty Years war to finally purge the enthusiasm of sectarianism from the cultural DNA of Europeans (and even then, religious minorities were second class citizens for centuries). There will be no calm reasoning with Iraqis of any stripe because the march of history continues, and only sadness can convince all parties that moderation is necessary for the existence of modern nation-states. Intervention in some fashion may be inevitable in the world, but our goal should be to prevent hell, not to create heaven on earth. The former is possible, the latter is not.

Remember, the Enlightenment, which was the essential component of the birth of the USA, was a direct result of exhaustion from the Religious Wars. If Europe hadn't shredded itself like an emo self-cutting girl on meth, there would never have been modern liberalism, ecumenicalism, rationalism, all of that enlightenment stuff.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I could pick your whole post apart... But it's to stupid to waste my time on.

In short (as it doesnt really deserve much time).

1. India as part of the British empire and on, is part of the politics. They are thus blamable when it comes to international politics.

2. Atomic weapons are atomic weapons. Heck, I have citizenship in two countries actively NOT going for nuclear weapons, this with Russia/formerly Soviet as neighbor.

3. If you don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India, you are not only ill schooled, you seem to fail at internet.

1r -- Talk about your "collective responsibility" attacks. Play that game long enough and we are all responsible for every bad thing ever done by any human anywhere ever since we all migrated out of the Olduvai gorge -- how do you live with your shame for the atrocities at Numantia? India is responsible for England's politics prior to WW2 as it was a member of the Empire? You do understand that the satrapies don't get to set policy, correct? Is American Samoa responsible for the Iraq war? In a vague sense, as part of the entity that is the USA, then Yes. But it is not as though that territory had any real say in the matter, they have no meaningful vote in our governance.

2r -- Atomic weapons have a lot of stigma attached to them, but they will continue to be developed by most nations with the wherewithal to do so. Why? Because they work. Once deployed you have a way to hurt any aggressor out of proportion to anything you might do without some form of WMD. Moreover, among WMDs, they can be more effectively focused at a single target and deployed using fewer resources (once developed). More nations will join the nuclear "club" as time progresses as no other weapon system yet developed carries a greater deterrent value. Would the events in Ukraine have transpired as they have if the Ukrainians had retained a dozen or so warheads and the means to deploy them? If your nation(s) choose not to avail themselves of this, then bon chance.

3r -- I do not think the IMF irrelevant to India. I think the IMF irrelevant in assessing Britain's cultural "makeover" of India between 1860 and 1950. Perhaps my phrasing was not precise.

[Kadagar_AV]

1r -- Talk about your "collective responsibility" attacks. Play that game long enough and we are all responsible for every bad thing ever done by any human anywhere ever since we all migrated out of the Olduvai gorge -- how do you live with your shame for the atrocities at Numantia? India is responsible for England's politics prior to WW2 as it was a member of the Empire? You do understand that the satrapies don't get to set policy, correct? Is American Samoa responsible for the Iraq war? In a vague sense, as part of the entity that is the USA, then Yes. But it is not as though that territory had any real say in the matter, they have no meaningful vote in our governance.

2r -- Atomic weapons have a lot of stigma attached to them, but they will continue to be developed by most nations with the wherewithal to do so. Why? Because they work. Once deployed you have a way to hurt any aggressor out of proportion to anything you might do without some form of WMD. Moreover, among WMDs, they can be more effectively focused at a single target and deployed using fewer resources (once developed). More nations will join the nuclear "club" as time progresses as no other weapon system yet developed carries a greater deterrent value. Would the events in Ukraine have transpired as they have if the Ukrainians had retained a dozen or so warheads and the means to deploy them? If your nation(s) choose not to avail themselves of this, then bon chance.

3r -- I do not think the IMF irrelevant to India. I think the IMF irrelevant in assessing Britain's cultural "makeover" of India between 1860 and 1950. Perhaps my phrasing was not precise.

You answer my post like if it wasn't just a random (and somewhat offensive) drunken rant... What's up with that?