The real question is whether JFK will meet SG this time since INC is not LOPchetak wrote:
Good show.
Quite a change from even watchmen and security guards from the US meeting the high and mighty including the termite queen and PM on their every visit..
...
as "JFK". Pls pick 3 other letters - or 4 letters - like JoK or JoKE or FoKer or Besy or Nose. Thx..Not everyone laughed it off:CRamS wrote:.... They just laugh it it off, give the most positive spin: "US is learning how to deal with changing diversity", "Oh we are so great onlee but for some bad apples" etc. N....
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28496544
I tell my two girls to always back themselves, never shy away from apologizing for mistakes, move on and trying again. The society has to support that. I like Americanism from that regard. Indianism kills self-confidence very quickly, especially for girls. I don't know if there is a middle way.LokeshC wrote:CRamSji,
That comparison is interesting. The western universalism thread gave me a new way of looking at "Americanism" and "American Exceptionalism".
Americanism is like being "cool". Being "cool" changes by the season and eras. Being "cool" in 1960s was about pushing black people to the back of the bus and making black grandmas vacate their bus seats for a white teenager and occasionally lynch/murder a black dude and make post cards out of it (http://withoutsanctuary.org). In the 2000s, being "cool" was about accepting your gay friends as normal people, not being overtly racist, having one token black friend (if you are white) etc.
The "cool" were always American, the "uncool" were unAmerican. That in short is what Americanism is. It externalizes failure. We Americans do not fail, if we fail we are not American. This has an interesting parallel to the situation in our retarded neighbors to the west, Bakistan where Muslims dont kill Muslims... only non Muslims do. Muslim failure is not a failure of Islam, it’s a failure of those people who do not follow Islam properly and are thus not Muslim. Muslims following Islam will not fail.
This externalizing of failure helps Americans to absorb insane amount of injustices mounted on them. That senator did something that is not cool, so they externalized his action and laughed it off. They call him retarded etc. In India, if something like this happens, we internalize it, generalize it and we shame ourselves. The way we view "Indianism" is exactly opposite of how Americans look at "Americanism". We internalize our failure and shame ourselves into believing we are worthless. They exteranlize it and say, its unAmerican and maintain their self-esteem, while trying to correct what they perceive as wrong. I don’t know what is the right way, because the American way of dealing with failure is disastrous. I outline a couple of them below.
I always wondered why poor white hillbillys who need welfare and subsidized education vote Republican who are hell bent on cutting funding to both of these things. Its highly counterintuitive. The answer is how the hillbillies and their leaders define "Americanism": Being rich and independent. Being poor and dependent of welfare: UnAmerican. So they worship rich people, vote republicans who then promptly cut welfare and make them even more destitute.
You can draw the same parallels with police brutality (which is mostly directed against black/hispanics). Since white people rarely get brutalized by the police, they see Brutalization of non-whites as justified coz they are doing "something wrong" and doing "something wrong" is unAmerican. Exactly the same thing about incarceration rate. Most recent example is Colorado. Before legalizing pot, more than 90% of convicted pot offenders were blacks. Whereas once it was legalized, one can see that most people who grow pot, sell/distribute them AND consume them are white. Suddenly, in Colorado, smoking pot became "American". But we all know that the same white people were doing the same thing before it was legal, just that they were not being caught at the same rate and one can only guess why!
Same can be said of Gun culture: owning a Gun is Americanism, not owning one is unAmerican. One can see the results of this thinking with recent events : Cliven Bundy militias, Las Vegas shooting, Columbine and countless other mass shootings in the US.
You are correct. Let me elaborate a bit.V_Raman wrote:I tell my two girls to always back themselves, never shy away from apologizing for mistakes, move on and trying again. The society has to support that. I like Americanism from that regard. Indianism kills self-confidence very quickly, especially for girls. I don't know if there is a middle way.
A few quotes from the article:Cosmo_R wrote:Not everyone laughed it off:CRamS wrote:.... They just laugh it it off, give the most positive spin: "US is learning how to deal with changing diversity", "Oh we are so great onlee but for some bad apples" etc. N....
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28496544
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/07/25/4 ... flori.html
They don't call us Flori-duh for nothing. {nice joke}
The latest inductee to the Sunshine State's face-palming club: U.S. Rep. Curt Clawson, the Bonita Springs Republican who replaced Trey Radel, the cocaine congressman busted for buying blow in Washington last year.
But first someone needs to explain the congressional ropes to the politician from that sometimes-alien land known as Flori-duh. {sometimes-alien == unAmerican!!! It takes a view of that guy is so dumb, we oughta teach him how to be American
Wrong takeaway.Satya_anveshi wrote:svinayak thanks for posting that video. Sheer pleasure to watch MUTU mofossils getting a GPL from their supposed masters.
No. The 'royal we' does not work. So as the Chinese say " You go now yes?"PratikDas wrote:Whatever, chief. Move on and take your generalizations elsewhere. We have our own thought leaders and we don't need the fortune cookie-style thoughts for the day from you.
MurthyB wrote:Angana Chaterjii, that despicable commie ISI traitor was fired from a dubious institution called CIIS back at the end of 2011. Now she is apparently at the Haas school of business at UC Berkeley. The list of these worthies reads like a who's who of 'breaking India' forces, both here and in India.
I mean, for most people, being fired from an academic institute, especially a fly-by-night one like CIIS would end their career. Not so for these scumbags it looks like. Talk about infiltration.
http://nonprofit.haas.berkeley.edu/rese ... -bios.html
Raja Bose wrote:Harsh Mander, Teesta all are there - only one missing is Arundhoti, perhaps she will be invited as a visiting scholar.MurthyB wrote:Angana Chaterjii, that despicable commie ISI traitor was fired from a dubious institution called CIIS back at the end of 2011. Now she is apparently at the Haas school of business at UC Berkeley. The list of these worthies reads like a who's who of 'breaking India' forces, both here and in India.
I mean, for most people, being fired from an academic institute, especially a fly-by-night one like CIIS would end their career. Not so for these scumbags it looks like. Talk about infiltration.
http://nonprofit.haas.berkeley.edu/rese ... -bios.html
We are WE.Karan M wrote:That has to be the greatest collection of jerks all in one place. So much for UC Berkeley.
PS: Could it be that these people are securing their future for the next 4-8 years of an indoo admin in India? Basically get faculty pojitions and run off to California? Smart sleazeballs.
Big powers over the years have targeted specific regimes by arming rebel groups with lethal weapons, thereby destabilising some states and contributing to the rise of dangerous extremists and terrorists. The destabilisation of Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Libya, among other states, is a result of such continuing geopolitical games.
It is the local people who get killed, maimed and uprooted by the interventions of major powers and their regional proxies. Yet those who play such games assume a moral posture to rationalise their interventionist policies and evade responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Indeed, they paint their interference in the affairs of other sovereign states as aimed at fighting the “bad” guys.
Cold War echo
Take the blame game over the downing of Flight MH 17, which was shot down by a surface-to-air missile (SAM), allegedly fired by eastern Ukraine’s Russian-speaking separatists, a number of whom have clearly been trained and armed by Russia. Russia’s aid to the separatists and Washington’s security assistance to the government in Kiev, including providing vital intelligence and sending American military advisers to Ukraine, is redolent of the pattern that prevailed during the Cold War, when the two opposing blocs waged proxy battles in countries elsewhere.
Today, with the Ukrainian military shelling rebel-held cities and Russia massing heavy weapons and troops along the frontier, the crisis threatens to escalate to a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation, especially if Moscow directly intervenes in eastern Ukraine in response to the worsening humanitarian crisis there. The United Nations says the fighting in eastern Ukraine has uprooted more than 230,000 residents. Over 27,000 of them have taken sanctuary in Russia.
After the MH 17 crash, U.S. President Barack Obama was quick to hold Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin, guilty in the global court of opinion over the downing and to spotlight Russian aid to the separatists. Through sanctions and diplomacy, Mr. Obama has steadily ratcheted up pressure on Mr. Putin to stop assisting the rebels. Yet, Mr. Obama has had no compunction in gravely destabilising Syria through continuing covert aid to “moderate” militants there. The aid is being channelled through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the jihad -bankrolling oil sheikhdoms.
Regime-change strategy
Mr. Obama set out on the mission of regime change in Syria by seizing the opportunity that opened up in 2011, when popular protests broke out in some cities against President Bashar al-Assad’s autocratic rule. The detention and torture of a group of schoolchildren, who had been caught scribbling anti-government graffiti in the city of Deraa, led to protests and demands for political reforms and a series of events that rapidly triggered an armed insurrection with external assistance.
From bases in Turkey and Jordan, the rebels — with the clandestine assistance of the U.S., Britain and France — established a Free Syrian Army, launching attacks on government forces. Washington and its allies simultaneously mounted an intense information war demonising Mr. Assad and encouraging officers and soldiers to desert the Syrian military and join the Free Syrian Army.
It is clear three years later that their regime-change strategy has backfired: Not only has it failed to oust Mr. Assad, it has turned Syria into a failed state and led to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — a brutal, medieval organisation seeking to establish a caliphate across the Middle East and beyond. With radical jihadists now dominating the scene, the Free Syrian Army has become a marginal force, despite the CIA continuing to train and arm its members in Jordan.
Had Mr. Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President François Hollande not embarked on this strategy — which helped instil the spirit of jihad against the Assad regime and opened the gates to petrodollar-financed weapons to Syrian jihadists — would murderous Islamists be in control of much of northern Syria today? It was this control that served as the staging ground for the rapid advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant into Iraq. This group now is in a position to potentially use water as a weapon through its control of the upstream areas along the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in Syria and Iraq, including important dams.
By inadvertently turning Syria into another Afghanistan — and a threat to regional and international security — the interveners failed to heed the lessons from the CIA’s funnelling of arms to the Afghan mujahideen (or self-proclaimed “holy warriors” of Islam) in the 1980s. The funnelling of arms — partly financed by Saudi Arabia and some other oil sheikhdoms — was a multibillion-dollar operation against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan that gave rise to al-Qaeda and monsters like Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammad Omar, chief of the Taliban who remains holed up in Pakistan. It ranked as the largest covert operation in the CIA’s history.
Now, consider a different case where a regime-change strategy spearheaded by the U.S., Britain and France succeeded — Libya. The ouster of Col. Muammar Qadhafi’s government through U.S.-led aerial bombardment in 2011, however, ended up fomenting endless conflict, bloodletting and chaos in Libya.
The virtual crumbling of the Libyan state, more ominously, has had major international implications — from the cross-border leakage of shoulder-fired SAMs from the Qadhafi-built arsenal, including to Syrian jihadists , to the flow of other Libyan weapons to al-Qaeda-linked groups in the arid lands near the Sahara desert known as the Sahel region. Nigeria’s Boko Haram extremists have also tapped the Libyan arms bazaar.
The weapons that Qatar and, on a smaller scale, the United Arab Emirates shipped to Libyan rebels with U.S. approval, including machine guns, automatic rifles and ammunition, have not only destabilised Libya but also undermined security in Mali, Niger and Chad. These weapons had been handed out like candy to foment the uprising against Qadhafi.
There cannot be better proof of how the toppling of Qadhafi has boomeranged than the fact that the U.S., whose ambassador was killed in a 2012 militant attack in Benghazi, the supposed capital of the Libyan “revolution,” has now shut its embassy in Tripoli, citing increasing lawlessness. The predawn evacuation of its entire embassy staff to Tunisia, with U.S. warplanes providing air cover, represented a public admission of defeat.
The plain truth is that it is easier for outside forces to topple or undermine a regime than to build stability and security in the targeted country. With neighbourhoods becoming battlefields, Iraq, Syria and Libya are coming undone. Another disintegrating state is Afghanistan, where Mr. Obama is seeking to end the longest war in American history.
Marginalisation of U.N.
Such is the United Nations’ marginalisation in international relations that it is becoming irrelevant to the raging conflicts. To make matters worse, the U.N. Security Council’s five permanent members, although tasked by the U.N. Charter to preserve international peace and security, have helped spark or fuel regional conflicts and aided the rise of insurgent groups through their interventionist and arms-transfer policies. These five powers — all nuclear-armed — account for more than 80 per cent of the world’s official exports of conventional weapons and most of the unofficial transfers. Chinese arms, for example, have proliferated to a number of guerrilla groups active in Africa and Asia, including insurgents in India’s northeast.
The only mechanism to enforce international law is the Security Council. Yet, its permanent members have repeatedly demonstrated that great powers use, not respect, international law. They have a long history of ignoring international rules when these conflict with their plans. In other words, the international law enforcers are the leading lawbreakers.
Mr. Obama, in toppling Qadhafi through the use of air power, and Mr. Putin, in annexing Crimea, paradoxically cited the same moral principle that has no force in international law — “responsibility to protect.” Indeed, the transition from the 20th to the 21st centuries heralded the open flouting of international law, as represented by the bombing of Serbia, the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Against this background, it is scarcely a surprise that, despite the continuing rhetoric of a rules-based international order, the world is witnessing the triumph of brute force in the 21st century.
If the Security Council is to act more responsibly, its permanent members must look honestly at what they are doing to undermine international peace and security. This can happen only if the Council’s permanent membership is enlarged and the veto power abolished to make decision-making in that body truly democratic.
(Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and the author, most recently, of Water, Peace, and War, Oxford University Press, 2014).
The plain truth is that it is easier for outside forces
to topple or undermine a regime than to build stability and security in the targeted country.
If Libya, Syria and Iraq are coming undone and Ukraine has been gravely destabilised, it is the result of interventions by big powers that claim to be international law enforcers when, in reality, they are lawbreakers
Cosmo_RJi, let me make my point clear. I may have come across as critical of US, but far from it. I admire and respect US for its boldness, self-confidence, nationalism etc. Every country has its share off racism, xenephobia, in India's case, casteism; and no country is immune from that.
Let's put John Kerry in perspective:UlanBatori wrote:I wish ppl wudnt refer to John Forbes Kerry
Did you miss the point that they had to mention that fact (of them being Unkil to their super unkil) in a congressional hearing. And after all that has happened with complete control on Indian (mis)governance for the so many years, Kobragade/AES, coordinating Indian parliamentarians letter to US etc....do these folks deserve to be called "diaspora" even if they are part of the inner circle of hostile nation. With these kind of people in diaspora, you would not need enemies.Cosmo_R wrote:Wrong takeaway.
Ms Bishwal and Mr Arun Kumar are not MUTUs. They are American and they are Unkil.
They do not have to be 'Indian' to satisfy established MUTU standards.
What is it you want? Shirin Tahir-Kheli as an example of non-MUTU.?
That would be more anti Indian than Pakistanis would be?
I find it so distressing that the diaspora is viewed as a liability rather than an asset.
The Jews don't think so. Only Hindus apparently.
Really saddened.
They want to contain India using netflix !svinayak wrote:India unbound
India cannot be contained demographically,
India cannot be contained culturally,
India cannot be contained militarily,
India cannot be contained politically,
They want t contain India in the global trade system
Did you miss the point that they had to mention that fact (of them being Unkil to their super unkil) in a congressional hearing.Satya_anveshi wrote:
Even pakistani Hasan Nisar has more intelligence then you when he said on pakistan tv that "Castism is there in every human being, would you or me want our children to marry the garbage collector woman's children? When these shudras convert to islam we're happy we say shaabash good decision! But we don't invite them in our house for lunch or ask them to sit on sofa in our drawing room for a mere glass of water. I know I don't and I won't ever! You wouldn't either"CRamS wrote:Every country has its share off racism, xenephobia, in India's case, casteism; and no country is immune from that.
Ahem no, he can use 'we' as he speaks for me too.Cosmo_R wrote:No. The 'royal we' does not work. So as the Chinese say " You go now yes?"PratikDas wrote:Whatever, chief. Move on and take your generalizations elsewhere. We have our own thought leaders and we don't need the fortune cookie-style thoughts for the day from you.
Watch NatGeo, fulminate against the injustice of the universe, seek relief in the eventual failure of people like you whilst promoting the triumph of those who are not.
BUT don't use 'WE' you are just speaking for yourself.
One is a very lonely number (fortune cookie says so).
The answer is very simple that preet bharara and his kind is where he is because others can't insult and degrade their own motherland and its people like he does. More like this why lawyers should be used in labs instead of rats:UlanBatori wrote:One might criticize Pleet Bhalala etc to one's heart's content, but... hey, if by some miracle YOU were in their shoes, what would you do differently? Would you really be better off if someone else of One Community or Another Community were in that position? Is it to your benefit to drive out such ppl from any public position or position of power, or is that just ur ass-scratching nah-nah-nah loser brat mentality puking there? Answer that very honestly, to keep your criticism a bit within bounds.
. That said, I agree casteism is not unique to India, in fact that was the very point I was trying to make. I thought, I had seen it all.
Roy is a White Man's stooge. Seems to be some religious or investment link somewhere. He has a grovelling tone towards whites, like a house negro talking to Massa. Americans too give him preferential access over other channels. There is some connection between the two that is not in public domain.prahaar wrote:The time 13:00, Mr. Roy requests deeper US intervention in India, what kind of stupid journalist asks this?
