Geopolitical thread

[RamaY]

>>>>>They want to break Indian civilization as we know.
Can you provide the proof? I can understand from a competitive stand point any entity will preserve its supremacy. We see it in business and human life.

The proof is their foreign policy and imperialistic posture as far as India is concerned. I am talking about India proper.

>>>>> The continuing debate on abortion, gay marriages, etc is continuation of their theological elite/population base.
That is just vote capturing tactics.

You can do better than that. Think my friend, think!

>>>>>That doesn't mean USA cannot turn dharmic in say 786 years. But until then what I say across threads is more realistic than your worldview.
What is my world view?

Your questions are your worldview

>>>>Did you ever introspect on their need for materialistic wealth creation at the cost of other nations/regions?
Are you saying their moham on materialism stems from their religion?

I am not talking about where it stems from. I am talking about how it is justified. Why does a Hindu accepts that it is not dharmic to claim his neighbors wife, even though he does it for whatever reasons? Why do muslims (even the most liberal ones) try to reason out Jihad? Why do Christians (I mean the silent majority) proselytize by donating and supporting their churches?

[SwamyG]

Rama garu: You have not answered my questions. I reiterate this is not about 10-40 Window type groups. I know the foreign money that is flowing into India - especially TN and AP.
You are asking me to think, where is the Rama garu I know who will create splendid spread sheets, charts ityadi when it comes and where is this Rama garu

[RamaY]

That Rama is hit by life

Till then you have to help me out by asking difficult questions, SwamyG garu! Probe it deep and things will come out, not from me but the true draṣṭās!

[RamaY]

SwamyG garu

For your reading What is America?

[svinayak]

The proof is their foreign policy and imperialistic posture as far as India is concerned. I am talking about India proper.

You should talk about the fragmentation of the Indian subcontinent as the major effort to split the population and civilization. This 100 year of effort to keep the situation under turmoil as the proof.

RamaY - really appreciate you ability to grasp and put it across in various forms such as charts/graphs. Keep it going

[Philip]

Move over New York,London,Paris,Moscow,Shanghai.....ye upstarts of the globe,the "Centre of the World" is now going to be the holy city Mecca,with its "zero-magnetism where people live longer",claims one of its Islamic "New Scientists"! To "stake" its claim to being the centre of the world and replace Greenwich as the spot where time is measured,a gigantic 2000+ ft. clocktower,resembling Big Ben and the Empire State building with four 150+ft dials, will dominate the skyline and flash to the faithful 5 times a day when it is time to pray!

Giant Mecca clock seeks to call time on Greenwich
For more than a century, a point on the top of a hill in south-east London has been recognised as the centre of world time and the official starting point of each new day.
By Adrian Blomfield, Middle East Correspondent, and Martin Beckford

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nwich.html

EXcerpt:

Due to start ticking on Thursday as the faithful begin fasting during the month of Ramadan, the timepiece sits atop the Royal Mecca Clock Tower which dominates Islam’s holiest city.

is at the heart of a vast complex funded by the Saudi government that will also house hotels, shopping malls and conference halls.

Bearing a striking resemblance to both St Stephen’s Tower, which houses the bell of Big Ben, and the Empire State Building, the Saudi upstart aims to outdo its revered British rival in every way.

The clock’s four faces are 151ft in diameter and will be illuminated by 2million LED lights along with huge Arabic script reading: “In the name of Allah”. The clock will run on Arabia Standard Time which is three hours ahead of GMT.

When a glittering spire is added, topped with a crescent to symbolise Islam, the edifice will stand at nearly 2,000 ft, making it the world's second tallest building.

The clock of Big Ben, by comparison, is just 23ft in diameter, while its tower stands at a mere 316ft.

Residents of Mecca will also be reminded that it is time to pray when 21,000 green and white lights, visible at a distance of 18 miles, flash five times a day.

But Islamic scholars hope the clock’s influence will stretch far further than the sands of Saudi Arabia, as part of a plan for Mecca to eclipse the Greenwich Observatory as the “true centre of the earth”.

For the past 125 years, the international community has accepted that the start of each day should be measured from the prime meridian, representing 0 degrees longitude, which passes through the Greenwich Observatory.

A standard time by which other clocks were set was needed to organise global travel and communications, but in the Islamic world the idea that it should be centred on a part of London is seen as a colonial anachronism.

As Mohammed al-Arkubi, manager of one of the hotels in the complex, put it: "Putting Mecca time in the face of Greenwich Mean Time. This is the goal."

According to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric known around the Muslim world for his popular television show "Sharia and Life", Mecca has a greater claim to being the prime meridian because it is "in perfect alignment with the magnetic north."

This claim that the holy city is a "zero magnetism zone" has won support from some Arab scientists like Abdel-Baset al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Centre who says that there is no magnetic force in Mecca.

"That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier and is less affected by the earth's gravity," he said. "You get charged with energy."

Western scientists have challenged such assertions, noting that the Magnetic North Pole is in actual fact on a line of longitude that passes through Canada, the United States, Mexico and Antarctica.

[D Roy]

The centre of the world is Ujjain as per the Tantric Agamas.

[Stan_Savljevic]

Till then you have to help me out by asking difficult questions, SwamyG garu! Probe it deep and things will come out, not from me but the true draṣṭās!

There is something called "convincing folks by facts, rather than by rhetoric, insinuations and pure bullshit." If brf ever intends to be taken seriously by folks wider than the self-pollinated like, it has go beyond incestuous ideas of "probe it" and "think about it." That also means letting the data speak for itself rather than call some xyz as napunsak or ej-lover, like it has become fashionable on this forum. Seriously, this forum needs to move out of its much-laughable "ahead of the curve" rubbish that has set in a vacuous garbage of nonsensical english and start getting serious about facts and data. Responding with "ignore me" does nt cut it either.

[Philip]

US-"culture of vengeance".

The release of the alleged bomber of the Lockerbie disaster,the Libyan al-Megrahi,has been very controversial in the US.Megrahi's conviction too was very controversial based upon the flimsiest of evidence,which several UK media institutions have been highlighting for years,making a very strong case based with hard evidence that he was innocent.Whatever the truth of the incident,the Scottish Govt. released Megrahi due to his illness-cancer,where he was given not too long to live by a reputed team of Scottish doctors.That he has lived one year after release has enraged Americans,demanding answers,who are now being described by Britain's highest RC cleric as "vengeful".It is not the first time that the US has been criticised for its "gangster" ,"Wild West","lynchmob" mentality at foreigners,ever mindful as we must how in the past,Reagan bombed Libya and killed one of Ghadaffi's children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nalty.html

Top Catholic attacks 'vengeful' USA over Lockerbie bomber and death penalty
Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic has condemned the United States of America over its “vengeful” attitude towards the Lockerbie bomber.
By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent

Excerpts:

Cardinal Keith O’Brien also attacked the country’s use of the death penalty and claimed some states operate a “virtual conveyor belt” of executions.

He suggested that the US should look at the faults in its own justice system rather than criticising Scotland over the compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Cardinal O’Brien, the outspoken Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, claimed the dispute boiled down to a “clash of cultures” between the two countries.

“In Scotland over many years we have cultivated through our justice system what I hope can be described as a ‘culture of compassion’.

“On the other hand, there still exists in very many parts of the USA, if not nationally, an attitude towards the concept of justice, which can only be described as a ‘culture of vengeance’.”

He agreed that the Lockerbie bombing, in December 1988, was “an act of unbelievable horror and gratuitous barbarity” and that the bereaved would want to seek “justice even vengeance”.

But the Cardinal said: “It is in these moments of grief and despair that we must show the world that the standards of the murderer and his disdain for human life are not our standards. They may plunge to the depths of human conduct but we will not follow them.”

Writing in Scotland on Sunday, he said the Bible teaches that “revenge is not a path we should take”.

Cardinal O’Brien went on to point out that 1,221 people have been executed in the US since 1976, putting “the world’s leading democracy” in the “invidious company” of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and China.

“These are not countries known for placing human rights on a pedestal.”

He said the figures showed that the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect on society, and claimed that the state of Ohio now takes the lives of so many prisoners that its “execution team” has to be given time off after each one to recuperate.

Cardinal O’Brien concluded: “Perhaps the consciences of some Americans, especially members of the US Senate, should be stirred by the ways in which ‘justice’ is administered in so many of their own States. Perhaps it is time for them to “cast out the beam from their own eye before seeking the mote in their brothers.” Perhaps they should direct their gaze inwards, rather than scrutinising the working of the Scottish justice system.

[RamaY]

Till then you have to help me out by asking difficult questions, SwamyG garu! Probe it deep and things will come out, not from me but the true draṣṭās!

There is something called "convincing folks by facts, rather than by rhetoric, insinuations and pure bullshit." If brf ever intends to be taken seriously by folks wider than the self-pollinated like, it has go beyond incestuous ideas of "probe it" and "think about it." That also means letting the data speak for itself rather than call some xyz as napunsak or ej-lover, like it has become fashionable on this forum. Seriously, this forum needs to move out of its much-laughable "ahead of the curve" rubbish that has set in a vacuous garbage of nonsensical english and start getting serious about facts and data. Responding with "ignore me" does nt cut it either.

Stan garu

I understood SwamyG's question. He wanted data/proof that USA's foreign policy is primarily driven by western religious/cultural/civilizational ethos. I said "till then" in my post and I hope you understand what it means.

While I work at SwamyG's question I have asked him to summarize a coherent post on USA's foreign policy vis-a-vis India since 1990s if not earlier. He brushed it aside by saying that he is not interested in 10-40 window type anal-a-sys. I too could have interpreted his answer in anyway I want. But I didn't.

I understand your frustration as you cannot find a logical motive behind US's geopolitical strategy w.r.t India. But showing it on other posters and asking them to "prove it" cannot be "BRF's way" either. By saying whatever SwamyG said (I am paraphrasing, "US's geopolitical posture and strategy stems from that nation's desire to be seek its national interests and exploit other's weakness; and India's failure is nothing but India's lack of will/strategy/capability") one can deduce that he is calling Indian leadership and destiny napunsak.

At least I have a hypothesis and I am trying to collect data and analyze/present it from different angles in different threads. I am sure you have your own hypothesis. How about practicing your own dictum and provide data/facts/analysis that prove my point wrong?

JMHT

P.S:It is so lame and napunsak to bring entire BRF community and analysis every time a poster disagrees with your opinion. We have seen umpteen times how this is played and how it ended. Let facts/analysis speak for itself. Ekam Sat' - so one of our point of views will be disproved over time. The subjects we discuss cannot be proved/unproved in one post or a day. So have patience and most importantly trust.

[Klaus]

There are some noteworthy points to take away from Brihaspati's posts in the Future Strategic Scenario thread where he says that European ethnicities become more open and flexible through migration to open lands. Europe (Britain included) during the 16th, 17th and 18th century must have been a very stifling environment for those people who thought that they were not getting their due share from the system and hence thought that they were being ripped off.

Once these people emigrated to the New World, the presence of vast stretches of territory and abundance of natural resources tended to create strains of varying personalities. We see this in the early capitalists, entrepreneurs and slave traders.

It is like quenching white hot metal in a water or oil bath. The resulting metal has widely differing properties across its cross section.

It is the reason why you find a economical or political system which has cultivated people who are willing to act upon their worldviews. Hence you have a Amirkhan Communist propaganda queen who lived, breathed and ate communism for a good 2 decades before she was told to make a quiet exit, authors like Howard Zinn who has made a living out of analysing/criticizing the system which has produced him.

The core reason for the US's behaviour toward India is because the US wants to preserve icons of the industrial economy and industry and sees India as a candidate who wants to take the easy way to the top through the information age. It is only with the Vedic systems that one finds respect and harmony with nature and the environment and the long arms of Amirkhan industry do not like what they see in this country.

Also United China seems to be easier to manage for them compared to a Indian suprastate. Also the American worldview favours large continental sized "nation" entities with population densities of the order of 2-8 people per square km rather than dense agglomerations such as those found in Sauth Asia. The Western mind is against population growth and population "visibility". Thus the urge to see India fragmented.

Thus the move toward large nations such as US, Canada, Oz, China (pop density same as Switzerland, also one child policy effectively brought them into this club as far as large nation with low pop density is concerned), Brazil with all the denser nations reduced to fragmented entities living on handouts from the big guys. The EU integration is also a move toward a similar step.

Countries such as Turkey, Poland and Japan are "swing states" in this theme. Parag munna and his handler seem to like this term a lot!

US also seems to be living under the notion that the Islamic ummah will one day come together and form a caliphate across the ME and Central Asia. The cold war, 2008 Georgian skirmish and cultivation of AQAM and Islamic terror was to keep the Russians at bay. The rationale could be that Islamists are not happy with the small and unproductive desert lands in ME, so giving them Central Asia and forming a ummah giant caliphate will ensure that they do not radicalize and come after the West later on. It also ensures Abrahamic domination over the world's energy, atleast the kind which powers the US's favorite industrial world.

JMHO.

[SwamyG]

While I work at SwamyG's question I have asked him to summarize a coherent post on USA's foreign policy vis-a-vis India since 1990s if not earlier. He brushed it aside by saying that he is not interested in 10-40 window type anal-a-sys.

To all fairness to our discussion, you did not ask me to do that. You asked me to think I do not know if you follow IF, but I had posted an FCRA report (was it for the year 2007, I forget) on the foreign money streaming into India. I am aware of the Joshua type projects (even the link to Bush involvment as per websites - no confirmation though).

The book you cited, has a preview in google books. I glanced at it, so far it talks about the early history. I will read more later today.

I maintain, USA takes care of its interests (which is dharmic from its national perspective), and that India should take care of its national interests (dharmic). To that end, both leaders have to butt heads or negotiate. If leaders of the country roll up and offer the underbelly of the country to the other, it is unpardonable.

The issue is not if America, UK or any other country is attempting keep India down, the issue is why? From an economic perspective we know if India is timid and continues to offer millions of gullible consumers then both the leaders of USA and India stand to benefit. In that process India will be in the same place as we find USA.

Another issue is the charges on USA. If I read correctly, there are two different schools. One opines America hates India, another opines America fears India. Any clarification on this would be great too.

I don't see my questions as difficult; I see them as necessary to update my knowledge and hopefully what I learn here I can share with others outside BRF.

[RamaY]

^

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 19#p920519

...
Even now, I will give you the benefit of doubt. Could you please come up with a coherent summary of USA foreign policy vis-a-vis India since 1990s, if not earlier?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 41#p920541

Rama garu: You have not answered my questions. I reiterate this is not about 10-40 Window type groups. I know the foreign money that is flowing into India - especially TN and AP.
You are asking me to think, where is the Rama garu I know who will create splendid spread sheets, charts ityadi when it comes and where is this Rama garu

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 80#p920880
...

I had posted an FCRA report (was it for the year 2007, I forget) on the foreign money streaming into India. I am aware of the Joshua type projects (even the link to Bush involvment as per websites - no confirmation though).

The book you cited, has a preview in google books. I glanced at it, so far it talks about the early history. I will read more later today.

[Carl_T]

He wanted data/proof that USA's foreign policy is primarily driven by western religious/cultural/civilizational ethos. I said "till then" in my post and I hope you understand what it means.

So is your argument that US Fp to everyone is driven by a "western religious/cultural/civilizational ethos" (what does that mean btw?), or is it only driven by that "civilizational ethos" towards India but with everyone else it is driven by self interests? Or do you say that US fp is not driven by any notion of self interest?


Also what part of US policy towards India do you find "no logical motive" behind btw? It has been hashed and rehashed to death on this forum.

[RamaY]

^ There are two scenarios.

First, there is irrefutable proof that US policy (foreign or otherwise) is driven by self-interest groups, even if we discount the self-interests of anglo-saxon groups which have at least 30-40% vote bank. In this scenario people can have clear and proven "logical motive" behind US actions and can put the entire blame squarely on Indian leadership/destiny.

Second, that the above point is not 100% confirmed/proven. But we are not ready to pursue the other angles/possibilities such as religious/cultural/civilizational ethos (it means exactly that). This is mainly due to one's unwillingness to accept that human thought process is part of the bigger system where his environment, culture, heritage have more influence on one's decision making process than one is willing to accept. Please read L&M dhaga to see what I am trying to say.

To understand a nation, first we need to study its history. USA's history started when white man landed on that continent. Its culture/religion/civilization is what he has done (to natives, slaves, himself, his brothers {Spanish-american war?}, to his own people, his adversaries, his friends and so on) since then. Then one can see the larger than self-interests motive.

[svinayak]

At least I have a hypothesis and I am trying to collect data and analyze/present it from different angles in different threads. I am sure you have your own hypothesis. How about practicing your own dictum and provide data/facts/analysis that prove my point wrong?

JMHT

P.S:It is so lame and napunsak to bring entire BRF community and analysis every time a poster disagrees with your opinion. We have seen umpteen times how this is played and how it ended. Let facts/analysis speak for itself. Ekam Sat' - so one of our point of views will be disproved over time. The subjects we discuss cannot be proved/unproved in one post or a day. So have patience and most importantly trust.

Too many times this accusation has been hurled and the entire BRF is castigated. In the early days there was clamor for proof for anything they did not understand or agree with. When links was provided and books was shown even then there was skepticism. After that when the books were read and links were read and independent searches was done then there was agreement. Books and links are being provided which are contrary to accepted facts now and it has come a long way since then. Even others who have not taken the time tell others that it cannot be 'ignored'. That is the most strange behavior.
Among this there are people still who have not provided even one link in there entire posts of 2000+ in BRF till now. And they are looking for proof and asking for others.

[Hari Seldon]

^^^ Take it easy Acharya san. Like a Mahatma once said:

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

Fight the good fight. Kuch toh log kahenge...logon ka kaam hai kehna.

P.S.
Of course the danger is one may tend to get overinvested in a particular POV. Hence, its always a good idea to not take oneself and one's POV too seriously only. Mock oneself at regular intervals. Only. Prevents cheeni drone like devotion to the party line. And its Good fun besides.

Jai ho.

[brihaspati]

We forget, that we are after all only modeling. Modeling implies simplifying assumptions to make the analysis tractable for our level of capacities to run the analysis as well as do it in reasonable time to make it at all useful.

I can see that we are here taking up extreme positions here w.r.t US fp, depending on simple models. Each model thinks of US as a monolithic entity in both forming fp as well as executing it. It is far from the truth, and remains so for any realistic modern nation state unless it is a totalitarian dictatorship of really really a single person at the one and only position in the state. [Now where can I find such a nation that also has any significant capacity to matter internationally!!]

Those who are dismissing US fp having any driving component of religion, and racial bias are doing so on a monolithic simplification of US politics and and decision-making. Similarly placing all motivation on such biases is also an error, and I do not think RamaY ji or SwamyG intended any such thing. The reality is that US fp is made up of a sum total of internal political bargaining that comprises a whole set of issue including business and religion and race.

Moreover, any institution has degrees and layers of inertia - stemming from both practical necessity [you cannot instantly switch off an on things that you have set up as processes], as well as the very human feature of persistence of mindset and ideological lines in individuals involved at various stages within that institution.

We seem to exclude religion and racial objcetives from "self-interest". Both the pure-material self interest as wel as the non-material self-interest can and do bargain with each other for share in the fp. This bargaining can take place not only between groups but also within the same individual. Maybe this will better help us understand what goes on in US fp.
,

[RamaY]

^ Good point Bji.

That Mesquita guy pulls self-interest out of Mother Theresa's ****s in his book. Will post that piece some day.

Thanks for detailing out various players and their positions/preferences. I am using that info for my analysis, hope it is ok. Please share the details Ramanaji asked if you can.

[brihaspati]

Thats perfectly okay - RamaY ji! You are doing yeoman service in the nitty gritty task of actually carrying out the calculations. I am revising the file with quantitative imputations. Send off as soon as I finish.

[SwamyG]

Among this there are people still who have not provided even one link in there entire posts of 2000+ in BRF till now. And they are looking for proof and asking for others.

The individual making a claim has to provide the proof and links. You expect the person questioning to provide the proof? If I say the wall is 10 ft high, you can ask me to prove it. I then collect various measurements across the width, and provide the numbers and claim the average is 10ft.
Providing links is just one step, as different people will interpret the data differently, unless it is as simple as "The Sun rises in the East". If the visionaries who can see things differently than the ordinary do not convince the ordinary by explaining it in a way the ordinary can understand, then both set of parties set to lose.

[SwamyG]

Rama garu: I am sorry, It was my mistake, I overlooked the last sentence of yours asking me my summary. I am guilty as charged. I will try to collect my thoughts.

[RamaY]

100 stribes upon you SwamyG garu. Now you have to do me a favor. Remember you did that DDM relationship table? Can you do something like that for USA history as you read pertinent books? (like event - time, inside actors, outside actors, result, war spoils, who got what, so on) It is high time we deconstruct massaland. That mosque proposal at WTC cannot come from thin air

[SwamyG]

Those who are dismissing US fp having any driving component of religion, and racial bias are doing so on a monolithic simplification of US politics and and decision-making. Similarly placing all motivation on such biases is also an error, and I do not think RamaY ji or SwamyG intended any such thing. The reality is that US fp is made up of a sum total of internal political bargaining that comprises a whole set of issue including business and religion and race.

Moreover, any institution has degrees and layers of inertia - stemming from both practical necessity [you cannot instantly switch off an on things that you have set up as processes], as well as the very human feature of persistence of mindset and ideological lines in individuals involved at various stages within that institution.

We seem to exclude religion and racial objcetives from "self-interest". Both the pure-material self interest as wel as the non-material self-interest can and do bargain with each other for share in the fp. This bargaining can take place not only between groups but also within the same individual. Maybe this will better help us understand what goes on in US fp.
,

I am not dismissing anything. My stance is simple - America creates its foreign policy to take care of its interests. The loaded word is "interests". What are those interests - commercial, spiritual, civilization ityadi. Corporatism is increasingly taking over the West, which cares about the bottom line. Corporations, like East India Company, have goaded, cajoled or threatened their governments to enact laws or change policies that will suit the Corporations needs.

[SwamyG]

I might want to shelve or refuse your last offer. I was planning to look at what happened in USA and India during 1700s. But let us move on with the current discussion.

[Carl_T]

First, there is irrefutable proof that US policy (foreign or otherwise) is driven by self-interest groups, even if we discount the self-interests of anglo-saxon groups which have at least 30-40% vote bank. In this scenario people can have clear and proven "logical motive" behind US actions and can put the entire blame squarely on Indian leadership/destiny.

No objection there.

Second, that the above point is not 100% confirmed/proven. But we are not ready to pursue the other angles/possibilities such as religious/cultural/civilizational ethos (it means exactly that). This is mainly due to one's unwillingness to accept that human thought process is part of the bigger system where his environment, culture, heritage have more influence on one's decision making process than one is willing to accept. Please read L&M dhaga to see what I am trying to say.

If you're saying that all nations are influenced by cultural views of the people that live in them and the cultural influence they have, I think that is obvious. I think the same goes for any other nation be it US, India, Russia, China, or Pakistan. Isn't Russian or Chinese or our own foreign policy influenced by cultural history and viewpoints developed on historical experiences?

However your basic argument wasn't that at all. You're generalizing and downhill skiing from your original argument - "US is against India because of civilizational hatred and wants to break India into many pieces". If I understood SwamyG, he's asking you to defend that.

You're creating a straw man of "self interests divorced from all historical perspectives and cultural opinions are the basis of all and every US FP onlee", something that no one has argued. Rather my argument has been ---> US FP towards India is based on advancing US strategic interests by containing Russia and China, and not allowing any nation to get too powerful and dominate a region, inevitably putting India under the hammer.

To understand a nation, first we need to study its history. USA's history started when white man landed on that continent. Its culture/religion/civilization is what he has done (to natives, slaves, himself, his brothers {Spanish-american war?}, to his own people, his adversaries, his friends and so on) since then. Then one can see the larger than self-interests motive.

See above.

[RamaY]

I am not dismissing anything. My stance is simple - America creates its foreign policy to take care of its interests. The loaded word is "interests". What are those interests - commercial, spiritual, civilization ityadi. Corporatism is increasingly taking over the West, which cares about the bottom line. Corporations, like East India Company, have goaded, cajoled or threatened their governments to enact laws or change policies that will suit the Corporations needs.

If you came this far, you would also agree that there are many types of transaction strategies - what strategies mass is interested in?

win-win
win-lose
win-
-win
lose-win
lose-lose
lose-
-lose

[RamaY]

...
However your basic argument wasn't that at all. You're generalizing and downhill skiing from your original argument - "US is against India because of civilizational hatred and wants to break India into many pieces". If I understood SwamyG, he's asking you to defend that.

You're creating a straw man of "self interests divorced from all historical perspectives and cultural opinions are the basis of all and every US FP onlee", something that no one has argued. Rather my argument has been ---> US FP towards India is based on advancing US strategic interests by containing Russia and China, and not allowing any nation to get too powerful and dominate a region, inevitably putting India under the hammer.
...

Why are you in a hurry to judge me, that I am judgmental on massa-intentions?

So you do agree that religion/culture/history do play a major role in a nation's FP. Just a couple of posts ago you didn't even know what that means exactly.

Now what is massa's religion/culture/history/civilizational background? How did it influence the FP and to what impact?

If that impact is temporary/regionallocal in nature, I am with SwamyG. If the impact is on Indic Core then I am correct to say massa is trying to destroy India (+/- 5% error w.r.t motivating factor as well as target impact region) {I will give you an example - if India were to nuke PRC will there be a difference between targeting PRC's cultural/historical/civilizational icons and their economic interests and population centers?}

For example make a table like this and list all US actions to the best of your knowledge. And play with the data by doing different combination groupings.

Action - time - place - actors (allies) - personal benefit - expected impact - impact level (core, periphery) - impact duration (short/long term etc) - cost to massa - cost to india...

will continue this discussion once you reach this point...

[SwamyG]

If you came this far, you would also agree that there are many types of transaction strategies - what strategies mass is interested in?

What you are asking me is to make a leap to the other side (so to speak, I know you and me are in the dharmic camp. You, me, and another person use the term 'dharma' most often).

[Carl_T]

Why are you in a hurry to judge me, that I am judgmental on massa-intentions?

Who me? This is the point you've been saying for the past few pages.

Why is this western obsession with a fragmented India; one can only guess.

Awesome! One plausible explanation behind the need for fragmenting India.

They want to break Indian civilization as we know.

What are these civilizational reasons for breaking india into pieces?

So you do agree that religion/culture/history do play a major role in a nation's FP. Just a couple of posts ago you didn't even know what that means exactly.

As I stated stated earlier, religion, history, and culture do play a role in shaping a nation's FP. What that specific role is, and whether that role is "major","minor", "peripheral", or "central" depends on the specific leadership in the nation that is acting out the FP, on the particular instance at hand, and cannot be generalized to the nation as a whole or to all the different sets of leaders that enact it. Unless you want to argue that Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all enacting the same policies fueled by the same interests towards India.

Now what is massa's religion/culture/history/civilizational background? How did it influence the FP and to what impact?

Massa's politico-cultural background is Anglican, Germanic, Protestant, Catholic, Latin and Jewish. What is the total effect of its ethnic makeup and cultural views on its foreign policy? I think well beyond the scope of this discussion, thus it has to be broken down case by case in order to make it relevant to this thread. So should we discuss specific cases?

If that impact is temporary/regional in nature, I am with SwamyG. If the impact is on Indic Core then I am correct to say massa is trying to destroy India (+/- 5% error w.r.t motivating factor as well as target impact region) {I will give you an example - if India were to nuke PRC will there be a difference between targeting PRC's cultural/historical/civilizational icons and their economic interests and population centers?}

The main impact is on limiting India's regional power rather than "destroying India", but we're jumping ahead, we're still on motivation for US policies.

-----> Anyways what is this civilizational motivation for US FP towards India? I have clearly stated what I believe is the motivation for US FP towards India.

For example make a table like this and list all US actions to the best of your knowledge. And play with the data by doing different combination groupings.

You want me to make a list for each and every US action towards India? Ok you win.

[Prem]

Gurudevao Namaha !!
In civilizational view , Maha Massa and Little Massies will like India to be similar to Philipine and ME folks desire it to like Pakistan and for the rest of the world its a matter of simple ruppiya as they struggle with economic development.
Is this a fair assumtion to be made that these entities view and deal with India mainly from this angle and use various tools to achieve this end.? Question i guess is, who is trying to get to the Indic "kore" and then mould it in its own image to finish it forever as That got to be the real antagonistic elememt in whole puzzle.
IMHO, in few decades , post economic world, the real battlefield gonna be in soft power academic , cultural or social values systems and Indics should geared up for this before they are eliminated and removed from the scene.

[RamaY]

What are these civilizational reasons for breaking india into pieces?

This is the question we are trying to answer. I made a hypothesis. Lets break it or prove it.

Unless you want to argue that Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all enacting the same policies fueled by the same interests towards India.

What is the difference in their policies vis-a-vis India?

Massa's politico-cultural background is Anglican, Germanic, Protestant, Catholic, Latin and Jewish. What is the total effect of its ethnic makeup and cultural views on its foreign policy? I think well beyond the scope of this discussion, thus it has to be broken down case by case in order to make it relevant to this thread. So should we discuss specific cases?

What is the LCD of Anglican, Germanic, Protestant, Catholic, Latin and Jewish? How did this LCD allowed USA to make friends/alliances/competitors? How did they behave when they encountered similar to Indic civilization? What was the impact on that native civilization?

Why is all this "beyond scope of this discussion"? Are you afraid that the skeletons will come out the closet?

The main impact is on limiting India's regional power rather than "destroying India", but we're jumping ahead, we're still on motivation for US policies.

Yes we are still on motivation for US policies. Play this mind game for me in the meantime...


1. You consider me as your potential competitor.

2. In your "self-interest" you want to limit my mobility - so you break my leg; which is a local/temporary impact, but I fail to write my 10th grade exams - it takes an extra year to finish 10th grade.

3. In your "self-interest" you want to limit my chances in getting into IIT. So you push me from the back and I hurt my head. Once again a local/temporary impact. Takes me two years to get into IIT.

4. I am trying to get into IAS. You ally with my roommate and make him break my hand. Again a local/temporary impact. I would not get into IAS. After couple of attempts I am disqualified (after 3 attempts)

5. I am working now, and have small family. You create a scenario so that my in-laws think that I am bothering their daughter. Creates family disharmony. again local/temporary impact. Takes 5 years to settle my life.

6. You control local schooling system and make sure that my daughter cannot wear my cultural symbols. You say you cant change the rules as majority follows your faith.

7. You hire someone to do love jihad on my daughter. She doesn't know about my culture/history because she is busy with her studies and 23.786 hours of home work. She cannot advance in life if she wears any of my cultural symbols or follows my traditions

8. You hire someone else to hit my wife's car with a truck... she dies.

At the end, I am still alive, following my own faith. Did you really hurt me?

Post script: After 10 years I die. Where is my lineage after me?

You want me to make a list for each and every US action towards India?

Were you expecting me to do that for you and give the answers? Just because you can type what/how/where/when/who?

[Stan_Savljevic]

At least I have a hypothesis and I am trying to collect data and analyze/present it from different angles in different threads. I am sure you have your own hypothesis. How about practicing your own dictum and provide data/facts/analysis that prove my point wrong?

JMHT P.S:It is so lame and napunsak to bring entire BRF community and analysis every time a poster disagrees with your opinion. We have seen umpteen times how this is played and how it ended. Let facts/analysis speak for itself. Ekam Sat' - so one of our point of views will be disproved over time. The subjects we discuss cannot be proved/unproved in one post or a day. So have patience and most importantly trust.

It is not lame if I point out the fact that you folks are destroying whatever little credibility there exists of this forum. Sure, go ahead and collect data for your hypothesis. But till you form a cogent hypothesis, do exercise some caution in letting others brand you as a Hindutva-fundamentalist or some such nutjobby name. There is possible merit in your argument that the US may be doing this to India from a religious angle, but then that requires a running after data. You are putting the cart before the horse when you pronounce your theory before you even start collecting data. When you really start collecting data to support your hypothesis, there may be a need to fine-tune your theories. These are all part of learning. If you come with a set theory, and try to fit data to your worldview that has been shaped elsewhere, you are losing a lot of customers who would believe you. And whether you want to discard this clientele as "not worthy of convincing" or not, fact is, a significant part of India is like that -- either dont care or cares for a logical explanation in steps. Not in jumps. And let me assure you that right as I write this, more people who need a logical exposition of ideas get mature to check out the www. At the end of the day, it all depends on who you are convincing: if your customer is the brf-microcosm that will agree with most of what you say, "think about it" is sufficient. If your customer is someone unbiased, but willing to learn more but provided you have data, the approach needs to be different. And pointing out that brf has been doing incestuous jumps does nt need a upper hand on any matter nor a napunsak-character. It is clearly there for everyone to see: just that some observe and some dont.

Acharya, just taking refuge that the whole brf should nt be blamed is as bs as what you do -- agree in two words with no supporting arguments either way. It may be your style to "agree" with certain hypothesis without due explanations, but it aint funny. It is in fact ridiculous. Your heart may be in the right place, but remember this is a war of ideas. Even if you have the best idea, if you cant put it down in words that are crystal-clear and cogent-enough, you have lost the battle. The onus is on people who bring revolutionary ideas to convince nay-sayers and folks on the boundary to be convinced. And regarding, me posting no links in my 2000+ posts, thanks but no thanks. I have better things in life than getting baited into a whose d1ck is bigger argument. You can believe what you want or ignore me, as you would say to others.

[svinayak]

Acharya, just taking refuge that the whole brf should nt be blamed is as bs as what you do -- agree in two words with no supporting arguments either way. .

Sorry I was not referring to you and did not reply to you. I was not referring to you regarding the posting number. bye.

[SwamyG]

Rama garu: Man, I am creating a summary for 'meekosam' . It answers several questions that I had in my mind, nothing yet to confirm your points though "Yuck thoo" is all I feel now. Should I take the next boat home is a serious question. My summary already runs 4 pages in MS Word with references ityadi. It is damning against America, nothing new that gurus did not know - just that it has not been presented the way I would have desired here.

Enough teasers. I will probably stop at 5 pages. The 'hate' is evident in its foreign policy. I am happy with my effort. I hope you are getting your summary ready.

[SwamyG]

Acharya, just taking refuge that the whole brf should nt be blamed is as bs as what you do -- agree in two words with no supporting arguments either way. .

Sorry I was not referring to you and did not reply to you. I was not referring to you regarding the posting number. bye.

Were you referring to me? I am the guy who has been asking questions recently with more than 2000+ posts. Or would I be a 3500+ guy?

[negi]

Apologies to all but what is this thread about (is this equivalent of MRCA dhaga for HAF guys ? ) ?

[svinayak]

Were you referring to me? I am the guy who has been asking questions recently with more than 2000+ posts. Or would I be a 3500+ guy?

Arrey baba, It is not you. I am talking about people even before you or Stan were in BRF. Why you worry.
I value your posts and also Stan.

[RamaY]

SwamyG garu,

If you are so sure of your findings I will be more than glad to change my POV. Bring it on...

[SwamyG]

^^^^
Remember I am not focusing on the religious aspects. So I am neither furnishing data points against it (obviously nor for it), I am just presenting whatever I see. I might just skim few books and articles here and there. I will accept your position if you can provide evidence. I will post it before this weekend. I should warn you there is nothing new that BRF does not know. It is just put in a way that Ram, Robert, Rahim, Jane and Joe will understand and it will not take a BRF guru to understand the pattern.