ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[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.