Blind anti-Americanism

[*sridinats*]

Well as long as there isnt a level playing field there will be a lot of peeved people out there and as long as such people exist this world would be no better than it is today!

As long as what you say will happen does not happen there will be problems..

For that "corrective globalisation" has to take place!

For every "burger munching" mumbaiyya there has to be a cowboy sitting in some Texas ranch savouring the delights of a plate of VADA PAV!!!!:-)

GET THE POINT.This world needs to find an even playing field. Once that happens you can be rest assured that there would be no "BLIND ANTI AMERICANISM" or for that matter anger againt any country

Sridhar

[*sridinats*]

I am reminded of a point that someone made to me a while back

"IF THERE IS AN INFESTATION OF MOSQUITO IN YOUR BACKYARD YOU DONT GO AROUND WITH A SLEDGEHAMMER TRYING TO KILL ALL THE MOSQUITOES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD"

perhaps that is the mistake the American govt is making right now....They NEED to remove the "mosquitoes" by getting rid of the dirt in "their backyard"

The American govt would probably have to correct its policies with respect to the rest of the world!

Sridhar

[jayakris]

What you call S**t from the world will snowball and keep coming back at the Americans if their leaders continue to try and pummel the world into submission!!

The leaders out there do it with the knowledge that despite millions of people taking S**t from the American government no country would dare to attack them and that is what infuriates the world...

This is an old line of thinking though. We are quickly getting to a point, say in 20 to 40 years, when wars would be just impossible to fight. The world has become a small place and except for middle-east and some odd countries out there, even US cannot fight a war with anybody, because they will be undercutting some interest or other of their own. The US cannot afford to let Bangalores and Shanghais and Manilas go down. Down the line, that would be the case with the Teherans and Tashkents and Harares too!

The famous line from Thomas Friedman - "no two countries with mcdonalds have gone to war against each other" is more important than we think. That is what a true free market dog-eat-dog world would do to you.

The middle east problem just needs to get cleared up. This war *could* start the end of wars if that gets cleared up. Think about it!

"IF THERE IS AN INFESTATION OF MOSQUITO IN YOUR BACKYARD YOU DONT GO AROUND WITH A SLEDGEHAMMER TRYING TO KILL ALL THE MOSQUITOES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD" ... perhaps that is the mistake the American govt is making right now....They NEED to remove the "mosquitoes" by getting rid of the dirt in "their backyard"

If the US were doing that, they would not go to Iraq but would start a war against all the mosquito ponds. They knew fully well that the main mosquito ponds are in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, etc. They went to the only pond where they would not burn out their own interests, but would send a message to other mosquito-breeders like France, China etc, that no more breeding will be allowed. The ponds need to open up for the dogs to hunt! ..

Don't think that once Iraqis run their country, they can prevent the Indias and Philippines and others from finding something to sell them or buy from them. It will not be all America. The same will happen in other middle east countries too, and that is when these young islamic terrorists will find something to do with their lifes.

Jay

[*sridinats*]

This war *could* start the end of wars if that gets cleared up.

Think about it!

Jay

No war has proved to be the end of all wars but LET US ALL HOPE that this may have been the last war!

The point that Friedman makes is a very valid point and he has made many interesting points in his book "the world is flat"

But i was jus wondering what happens when one country(say maybe france) wants to advance its interests in another country and say a country like america tries to hold on to the ground tht it has in that country...Would that not result in a conflict??

For conflicts to stop Globalisation has to reach such an extent that everything is intertwined...Globalisation as it stands today is not so...After all old mcdoanld is still an american enterprise and therefore Friedman is talking bout how America would not go to war with another country where its interests are served!

So like i mentioned with a little correction if true globalisation can take place then i am sure like you said JAY there would be VERY LITTLE possibility for war..but it is important that the right balance is maintained as we go ahead with Globalisation so that the phrase

"VASUDAIVA KUTUMBAKAM" makes sense!

Sridhar

[jayakris]

British Medical Journal Lancet has estimated that 100,000 civilians have been killed in the Iraq war .. You can talk about European interests, exploitation, US intererts, free world and all that stuff ...but for me the bottomline is the death of hundreds and thousands of civilians who have perished in this conflict.

The countries that cry so much should then help in reducing the conflict and supporting the reduction of insurgency that causes civilian and american deaths, rather than sit and wish that the US would lose the war. Admit it - that is what all anti-American thinkers want.

It is somewhat of a similar case as the bombs in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Didn't the innocent people's death help reduce more deaths in the future? ..

Jay

[*sridinats*]

If the US were doing that, they would not go to Iraq but would start a war against all the mosquito ponds. They knew fully well that the main mosquito ponds are in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, etc. They went to the only pond where they would not burn out their own interests, but would send a message to other mosquito-breeders like France, China etc, that no more breeding will be allowed. The ponds need to open up for the dogs to hunt! ..

Jay

The problem is that they are going for the mosquitoes...if they go for the ponds, or if they want to get rid of the mosquito breeders then they would hve to correct some of their own policies!

Sridhar

[jayakris]

But i was jus wondering what happens when one country(say maybe france) wants to advance its interests in another country and say a country like america tries to hold on to the ground tht it has in that country...Would that not result in a conflict??

No, it is not possible in most countries already, for US or China to start an armed conflict with France or anybody else. Those days are over already. Iraq was one of the very few places where this could be done (also perhaps some African nations - which is a big pond of problems that would come to the forefront after middle-east clears up)

For conflicts to stop Globalisation has to reach such an extent that everything is intertwined...Globalisation as it stands today is not so...After all old mcdoanld is still an american enterprise and therefore Friedman is talking about how America would not go to war with another country where its interests are served!

True that it is not just yet there. But it is unstoppable that Globalization will happen, and it is happening at a breakneck speed too. This is really the true reality out there. The middle east is one place where this has been largely STOPPED by the regimes and the exploiters. Give it even 10-15 years and you will be surprised where the middle east will be.

So like i mentioned with a little correction if true globalisation can take place then i am sure like you said JAY there would be VERY LITTLE possibility for war..but it is important that the right balance is maintained as we go ahead with Globalisation so that the phrase "VASUDAIVA KUTUMBAKAM" makes sense!

Well said!

Jay

PS: "vasuDHaiva kutumbakam" actually -- the root word is "vasudha", meaning world.

[*sridinats*]

British Medical Journal Lancet has estimated that 100,000 civilians have been killed in the Iraq war .. You can talk about European interests, exploitation, US intererts, free world and all that stuff ...but for me the bottomline is the death of hundreds and thousands of civilians who have perished in this conflict.

The countries that cry so much should then help in reducing the conflict and supporting the reduction of insurgency that causes civilian and american deaths, rather than sit and wish that the US would lose the war. Admit it - that is what all anti-American thinkers want.

It is somewhat of a similar case as the bombs in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Didn't the innocent people's death help reduce more deaths in the future? ..

Jay

I think Puneet does have a valid point...Human life is human life and you cant go killing so many thousands of innocents!

Again countries dont have the major onus of stopping terrorism.....Terrorists are venting their anger in the only way that they know, VIOLENCE against what they believe is an unfair world order...Their grouse is justified BUT NOT THEIR METHOD OF EXPRESSING IT!!

and in response to that killing so many thousands of innocents is nothing short of terrorism itself...

First establish an equal(near equal) world order...Till then dont hope for an end to civillian deaths and American deaths(dont the 2 come in the same category??)

Sridhar

[*sridinats*]

Globalization will happen, and it is happening at a breakneck speed too. T

Globalisation is happening at a breakneck speed and therefore there arises a need for a speed breaker to ensure that it slows down "corrects" itself and takes place in a more "amicable manner".....


Sridhar

[jayakris]

Terrorists are venting their anger in the only way that they know, VIOLENCE against what they believe is an unfair world order...Their grouse is justified BUT NOT THEIR METHOD OF EXPRESSING IT!! ..

I don't blame the terrorists, nor do I think their methods should be different. I really blame the sources of support that keep the terrorist youngsters frustrated in the muslim world. The sources have sinister plans and are in bed with multinational businesses and individual money-grabbers to perpetrate the frustration of the terrorists in those countries.

and in response to that killing so many thousands of innocents is nothing short of terrorism itself...

Those are semantics. Call it whatever you want to call it. Put yourself in the shoes of an Amercian president, and you will find quickly that there is NO options but the iraq war to start solving the problem. Forcing free-market self-givernance in any of the middle-east countries would have sufficed, but Iraq was the only place where it could be done. That is the cold reality.

Are we interested in solutions or are we going to worry semantics. Call America a terrorist country, fine by me. I think this terrorism will help in the end, that is all.

Jay

[puneets]

The countries that cry so much should then help in reducing the conflict and supporting the reduction of insurgency that causes civilian and american deaths, rather than sit and wish that the US would lose the war. Admit it - that is what all anti-American thinkers want.

I'm not trying to defend the actions of any other countries. I too believe in the concept of free-trade and democracy..and there are lots of things that one can learn from US (given its economic success).

The only reason why I mentioned that statistics is because I'm fed up with the propoganda that the governments employ to justify wars. They talk about spreading 'freedom' ..and then hold up thousands of prisoners without any charges. They talk about 'freedom of press etc' and then end up feeding pro-american articles in Iraqi newspapers. These double standards annoy me....not just in case of US..but for other countries too.

[jayakris]

Globalisation is happening at a breakneck speed and therefore there arises a need for a speed breaker to ensure that it slows down "corrects" itself and takes place in a more "amicable manner".....

Actually, that is happening. And all of that is happening regardless of the wars and middle-east and all that. So, you are probably mixing two relatively independent issues here (though the speed of globalization and the solving of middle-east issues would affect each other a bit, obviously)

The Iraq war is not at all a vehicle to bring in globalization. Just that it becomes much more of a justifieable war if and when true globalization is achieved. That will happen with its own mechanisms (driven by pure economics and business) to correct itself.

Jay

[*sridinats*]

BRUTAL ANALYSIS JAY

Look i find it difficult to b so cold blooded when u r talking of so many thousands being killed...There is no history to suggest this war has given us the solution and i suspect no reall basis to suggest so...but i do hope that ur words are true and maybe we have found the soln

Sridhar

[jayakris]

The only reason why I mentioned that statistics is because I'm fed up with the propoganda that the governments employ to justify wars

Yeah, its is annoying, but the problem is also because of the inability of the intelligentsia and the media around the world to look deep into the issues with a detached view and give the truths to the people. By now, the people of the world should know that this is all crap - every damn utterance by all these statesmen heads of state (not just Bush!) is basically intended to keep people from truly figuring out what is going on. It is indeed annoying as hell.

Jay

[jayakris]

BRUTAL ANALYSIS JAY .. Look, i find it difficult to b so cold blooded when u r talking of so many thousands being killed...

Hey, that is what we academicians are supposedly trained to do! .. I too hate the mostly cynical cold analysis I am doing (though with a hopeful end), but this is all that makes sense to me - because I generally do not believe in any country's people, governments or heads of state being particularly more or less "moral" or anything. I am just hoping for a less-conflicted co-existence of everybody in the end.

There is no history to suggest this war has given us the solution and i suspect no reall basis to suggest so...but i do hope that ur words are true and maybe we have found the soln

Well, the world war-II did end up with some solutions in the world. Later, more problems started, but at least for a while it ended a lot of misery for people. Let us be hopeful ..

Jay