1.) The mom of one of my best friends is from Pakistan. Her English is very fluent, but her native language is Urdu, and she still has a distinct L2 accent. She has a “vanilla American name” (Julianna), as do all of her siblings whom I’ve met.
2.) Most Americans have a very hard time pronouncing and/or remembering anything that isn’t a “vanilla American name.” The idea isn’t to fool you into thinking you’re talking to a WASP–the company just want to give you a label for the person on the other end that you’ll actually be able to use if you need to.
Yeah, because that’s working out so well for them.
Er… yes, actually. Not acceptable, of course, but certainly normal.
There are a couple violent Islamic separatist groups in Jammu and Kashmir, but they’re bankrolled, trained, and incited to some degree by the Pakistani ISI.
The rest of the country doesn’t have any more “violent separatists” than the US does - Christian Patriots, Michigan Militia, Creativity movement, various Klan-style groups, Aryan Nations, the Black Panthers, and so forth.
There are also violent separatists (or revolutionaries) in Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, Japan, China…
Not about whether or not ObL “masterminded” the 9-11 scheme. Hell, if that is the level of his genius… Never before in history has such an awesomely stupid plan actually worked! Well, maybe the Trojan Horse. But the cockpit doors weren’t locked. Fifty years of airplane hijackings, and the goddam cockpit doors aren’t locked. Incredible.
But the issue of Taliban sheltering is murky. Does anyone really know how much territory the Taliban controlled, rather than claimed? Does anyone have proof that ObL was in that territory? And lastly, does anyone believe that if the Taliban had said “Sure, take him wherever you find him.” that it would have made the least bit of difference?
We are sinking ourselves ever deeper into the pit of Afghanistan, where empires go to bleed… Where is the line between justice and crude vengeance? Innocent lives lost might be a very good one. Not to mention the happy fact of aligning ourselves with men who are up to their elbows in blood.
I said this all years ago, and got roundly pasted for it. I was un-American, cowardly, didn’t care about our lives lost, you know the drill. Not eager to do it again, especially as a hi-jack of a hi-jack. But your question is honest, and deserves a response.
But I kinda already did; if Saudi Arabia, no matter their type of govt, is in fact considered a legitmate government by world nations and bodies like the UN, then…
…if the situation was reversed, yes, I would accept it. I may not like it, but the fact that my government asked for the foreigner’s military help would remind me that this foreign presence wasn’t an invasion, nor an occupation, was subject to many rules of the host country, was isolated to a few staging areas…yes. I could live with that.
I’d be more pissed at the fact that I lived in a wealthy nation that didn’t spend more money on my own military so that outside help wouldn’t be necessary in such a scenario, though.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the background to debate this, but my impression was formed by discussions with someone who actually lived in India for a while. So I’m afraid the extent of my rebuttal is going to be contained to a hearty :dubious:.
While I agree with your larger point that India has it pretty good as far as developing nations go, I would be surprised if this quote was accurate. The Northeast of the country, especially in Manipur, Tripura, Nagaland and Assam, still has some very active violent separatist movements that manage to cause more chaos in the region than the groups you listed cause in the US combined. There are also other fringe separatist movements elsewhere, such as the Sikh separatist movement (which used to be more prominent).
If you include ‘extremists’ who are not necessarily separatists (your list seems to include a few such groups for the US), then the rest of India likely “wins” by an order of magnitude due to the widespread Naxalite movement.
It’s certainly got more violence than most Western nations.
I’m speaking in relative terms, though. When you consider that India has only existed as a nation-state for 59 years, they’re doing rather well. Think about what Germany was doing when it was 59 years old- or how much more active American fringe movements were only 40 years ago.
But the people you are claiming to hate us are not the ones we are fighting. We are not fighting the ex-Marxists, we are fighting the radical Islamists. That’s the flaw in your logic.
More goalpost shifting. You originally said that these policies don’t work, but they do. They accomplished their intended goals and provided benefit for generations to come. Arguably though, the India created by the Raj is better off than they were before the Raj.
I’m not arguing about what they are capable of in an imaginary world that never happened. I am saying what happened in the real world. The British system created the Nation of India, a nation which never existed in any form whatsoever prior to that. You’re arguing for some imaginary potential to support an egalitarian hypothesis. India was NEVER united as a singular entity at any point in history prior to this. The nation of India is FACTUALLY a British creation.
You’re the only one who seems to think that racial superiority is even a factor. Racial superiority doesn’t even factor into my argument. It’s irrelevant.
Yes, India would have been impossible without the British. Maybe India would have become SEVERAL nation states. Maybe there would be a Marathi nation state. But the bottom line is that the western concept of a nation state was imposed upon them and they kept it.
It is ahistorical to claim otherwise. Appeals to emotion with implied racism is simply disingenous hyperbole and has no place in the discussion.
And how is this a problem? Given the amount of communalist violence going on in India, for example, it’s hard to accept that uniting under common leadership has done them any favors. So there might have been a dozen or more smaller countries on the Indian subcontinent (as there were prior to colonization). Big deal; at least the locals would have been more in control of their own destinies.
[/quote]
It’s not a problem if you recognize that they might have achieved statehood and currently be several nation-states rather than one India. There is no evidence that the locals would be in control of their destinies, likely they would be under the thumb of a local tyrant or some Turkic tyrant as they were before the British showed up.
Assuming they would have developed those resources without their relationship to the West.
Right, the British used the native feudalism to their benefit.
You have a very narrow and skewed view of foreign policy. The Awakening Groups are not about hedging bets, they are about keeping the reverse of Saddam’s Iraq from happening, a retributive Shi’ite authority exacting vengeance upon the Sunni minority. They also helped to root Al Qaeda in Iraq out of the country. Karzai is of course Pushtun just like the Taliban, so of course he has to make concessions to them and to the Northern Alliance. I’m not exactly clear whether or not the Northern Alliance is much of an entity anymore without Massoud alive any longer. They are balancing different tribal interests, yes, just like the British, but you’re oversimplifying it a great deal. ‘It’s just about oil.’, is so narrow that it’s not even true. Yes, it’s partly about oil, but it’s not ‘just about oil.’
I’m not quite sure that conquest is equivalent to “unification”. If such were the case, one would say that Hitler unified most of Europe. Which has elements of truth, but still isn’t true.
I’m not talking about a specific subset of the people of Afghanistan, you blinkered fuckwit! I’m talking about the nation of Afghanistan as a whole. The US is occupying the whole country and bombing the hell out of it (as evidenced by the increase in civilian airstrike casualties). That’s not a recipe for getting the locals to like us!
I should have put ‘benefit’ in quotes to indicate my skepticism towards labeling it as such. My assertion still stands - if imperialist policies and methods actually worked, Africa, Asia, and India (as well as parts of coastal China) would still happily be under the benevolent tutelage of the crowned heads of Europe. They’re not - successful revolts threw off the yokes of empire. Imperialism doesn’t work.
The question is, how do you interpret those real-world facts?
Do you believe, sir, that the peoples of India are entirely incapable of constructing modern nation-states on their own without British interference? Do you assert, sir, that without British imperialism in India, the locals would have remained “half devil and half child”, as Rudyard Kipling called them? Do you also therefore assert, sir, that the populations of the continents of Africa and Asia would similarly have failed to witness the rise of modern nation-states without the active interference of European imperialism?
A hypothetical nation-state of Maharastra would be no less of a modern state than united India. In fact; less so- no “western” nation-state is close to as large, in terms of population, and few are larger in terms of geographic scope. Most are much smaller.
Native feuding, not feudalism. Feudalism is simply a hierarchic system of government based on the idea of reciprocal service.
It’s the world’s largest democracy, and the national government is pretty good as 3rd-world governments go.