hinduwoman

Dr. Rick, Do you really think that Bush & Co. are that insane to assassinate India's PM?
Besides, unless they leave tons of proof that USA is behind it, the automatic assumption would be that Pakistan had done it; that means war which would seriously disrupt USA's plans.

Phaedrus, the tactics Iraqis are using are the same as used by terrorists --- hit and run, suicide attacks. Indian troops had to deal with several such situations for the last twenty years, only people like us called them terrorists, while they labeled themselves 'freedom-fighters'.
However one bieg difference is that Iraqis are not killing US civilians yet , because there are no civilians.

Darwin26, it is not allieviating misery that India is against, but being labelled as 'occupiers'.
India has agreed to give in only if there is national consensus on the issue, Usa sets out a clear timetable for democratic govt and other muslim countries do not object. Interestingly have dropped the idea of UN sanction altogether.
India is already setting up a hospital in Iraq.

Dr Rick

A ban on all assassinations was first instituted by President Ford, and then reiterated in 1981 by President Reagan through Executive Order 12333 and again by each of his successors.

Until now.

Bush Jr. quietly lifted the 25-year ban recently, calling political assasinations a "defensive" move against attacks on American lives, and circumventing a series of legal constraints on assassinations imposed since the Church committee found in 1975 plots against foreign leaders had been supported by the US in terms "so ambiguous that it is difficult to be certain at what levels assassination activity was known and authorized:"

The Senate Select Intelligence Committee at that time found that the US had some level of involvement in coups or murders of political leaders in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Iraq, Chili, and the Congo.

Others would add South Vietnam, whose dictator was killed in a CIA-backed coup during the Kennedy administration, Bolivia, where revolutionary leader Che Guevara was killed in 1967 by Bolivian soldiers with the support and encouragement of the U.S. government, Cambodia, where a CIA supported coup against its leader ultimately plunged that country into the killing fields, and Iran, where the CIA helped a butcher that gave himself the title "Shah" seize power.

The level of involvement by the US in the demises and downfalls of Gandhi and Bhutto is a matter of speculation, not fact. But Bhutto wrote in his death-cell memoirs that he was threatened by Kissinger, and it's strange that Sikh assassins could infiltrate the security forces of India to get close enough to kill its leader.

It's not a conspiracy theory, but a fact of recent history, that being a leader not favorable to the US is not predictive of long life and prosperity on the Asian sub-continent. Of course, the Empire's power is not absolute, and so not everything that happens there is orchestrated or controlled by it. Some leaders opposed to US interests have done well, but so many have not.

The Empire has a distinguished history of manipulating foreign governments, overtly and covertly, legally and illegally, with a system of rewards and punishments. Sometimes it doesn't have to kill its targets; its will is carried-out quietly by others. West Papuan independence leader Theys Eluay was assassinated by Indonesian Army units 2 years ago. The assassins were members of KOPASSUS, a special operations unit trained by U.S. Special Forces and CIA personnel that was involved in massacres in East Timor during the Indonesian occupation of that country.

No one on this thread has claimed or even implied that Bush is planning to assassinate the leader of India; he wouldn't have to to make life difficult for him, and even if the Empire wanted him dead, it would find a covert way to do it. For now, it will find other ways to influence and pressure the PM.

Nonetheless, it's not likely that the CIA just got its "license to kill" renewed so it could make nice with the enemies of the Empire.

phaedrus

HW

the tactics Iraqis are using are the same as used by terrorists --- hit and run, suicide attacks. Indian troops had to deal with several such situations for the last twenty years, only people like us called them terrorists, while they labeled themselves 'freedom-fighters'. However one bieg difference is that Iraqis are not killing US civilians yet , because there are no civilians.

Sigh as i said, going by that logic Pakistan becomes a perfect choice. They also can claim the same. And what iraqi's are doing to US soldiers (or allied soldiers) is not terrorism.... It is iraqi citizens who dont like US/allied presence on their soil doing their bit to de-stablise. And what stupendous logic with regard to the US civlians though.

btw do you remember what happened when India sent its peace keeping forces to Srilanka ??

Rick

The level of involvement by the US in the demises and downfalls of Gandhi and Bhutto is a matter of speculation, not fact. But Bhutto wrote in his death-cell memoirs that he was threatened by Kissinger, and it's strange that Sikh assassins could infiltrate the security forces of India to get close enough to kill its leader.

If they are speculations or conspiracy theories...dont try to provide them as if they are facts of the power of the evil empire. As i have illustrated in my earlier post, if US was all-pervasive, it should have got a world that caters to its demands, not a world where majority seem to disagree with it .

And with regard to your statement regarding sikh assassins, i am a little confused. Hope you are aware that Sikhs are Indians and as citizens of that country, will be working in various departments in the government. And the indian governemnt couldnt have known that they were potential assasins when they recruited them (since the incident of golden temple could have happened after the recruitment). As indicated above it was Indira Gandhi's decision to send troops into Sikh's holy temple that triggered all the anguish among the sikh community ( we can get into debate about how anyone could have cleared such personnel without checks....but the problem is assasins dont come their "profession" stamped on their foreheads ....anyhows that is another discussion?)

jp

Dr Rick

Your earlier post, like this one, attacked strawmen. I never claimed that the deaths of Gandhi or Bhutto "are facts of the power" of the US, or that US influence is "all-pervasive." Don't reformulate an argument that you don't understand.

The fact that the US operates so freely against the will of the world's majority is evidence of its power. Do you think the majority of the world's population agreed with Rome as it was made to bend to its will?

You are completely missing the point of what an Empire is and does. An Empire doesn't rule other states by consensus or democracy; it subjugates them to its own will irrespective of what the majority wants. :banghead:

The US behaves in many ways like an Empire; it acts with impunity against the will of most of the world when it wants to, and no one dares to stop it.

phaedrus

Rick

Your earlier post, like this one, attacked strawmen. I never claimed that the deaths of Gandhi or Bhutto "are facts of the power" of the US, or that US influence is "all-pervasive." Don't reformulate an argument that you don't understand.

Sure strawmen.....but you had implied about the empire's power in this way....

I suspect there's no end in the near future to what America will do to create a "coalition of the willing," and, unfortunately, India may have little realistic choice but to go along with this idiocy.

Third-world countries may possibly be more vulnerable to the subtle influences of hyperpower diplomacy than Spain and Australia

and then you went about the incidents in three countries....what is one supposed to infer from it?
One shouldnt provide anecdotes without qualifying that they were specualtions right?

I am not reformulating any argument, just pointing out fallacies.

The fact that the US operates so freely against the will of the world's majority is evidence of its power. Do you think the majority of the world's population agreed with Rome as it was made to bend to its will?

Ahhh...Rome, how exactly did rome bend the world to its will??? And by "world" you mean? No one is debating here about the "power" of US, everyone agrees its a unipolar world today, what we were debating is your POV that US is able to convince/persuade all countries in the world to tow its line. That is not what is exactly happening right? End of the day, many countries chose to not side with US on the Iraq issue, but did that stop US, no it didnt. But yes, given the current turmoil in that country and no WMDs ( so far) does make the US government look like lets say....not very credible.

You are completely missing the point of what an Empire is and does. An Empire doesn't rule other states by consensus or democracy; it subjugates them to its own will irrespective of what the majority wants

And then revolutions happen and the empire gets its butt kicked? And do these states do whatever the empire wants or are they just keeping silent as the empire goes about doing its things since they dont have the power to stop it...thats a fine line which seems to be eluding thee.

The US behaves in many ways like an Empire; it acts with impunity against the will of most of the world when it wants to, and no one dares to stop it.

Sigh....yes, no one is stating otherwise. However, the problem, making the world do what it wants.....the world not stopping it from doing stupid things is ONE thing...the empire persuading the world to do stupid things is ANOTHER thing.

Dr Rick

You were to infer precisely this: "I suspect there's no end in the near future to what America will do to create a "coalition of the willing," and, unfortunately, India may have little realistic choice but to go along with this idiocy.

Third-world countries may possibly be more vulnerable to the subtle influences of hyperpower diplomacy than Spain and Australia"

Okay, now: here's a little pop quiz:

"Before he was executed, Bhutto wrote that Kissinger had threatened to make an example of him for not acquiesing to US demands on his nuclear policy, and died believing that the US was behind the coup that ultimately brought both his government and his life to an end."

What part of this has any speculation on my part? Is what I posted fact of speculation? Can you tell the difference?

"Indira Ghandi was assasinated by her own bodyguards..."

Fact or speculation?

"....around the time she was presumably contemplating a strike against Pakistan..."

Fact or speculation?

"...that would have disrupted US plans in Afghanistan..."

Fact or speculation?

"....(the US was already fighting a proxy war there with the Soviets)..."

Fact or speculation?

"...and just about the time Sheik Mujibur, the popular leader of Bangladesh..."

Fact or speculation?

"...who was not so friendly to US interests,..."

Fact or speculation?

..."was murdered."

Fact or speculation?

..by making them; ohhh...now I get it...please, carry on.



Oh, pick me, pick me! Let me answer that:

It probably had something to do with a really powerful military that could threaten and take over any other country it wanted to, irrespective of any external opposition to its policies, coupled with overwhelming economic power...I wonder if there's something there analagous to a country that exists today...let's all think real hard a moment...

Yeah, we know; you're just posting fallacies for us. Please continue.

Oh, good; you must be illustrating another strawman fallacy here for our benefit, again. No one could really be foolish enough to post an argument against what I didn't say and claim it was my POV, huh? I mean, not once in this entire thread did I say anything of the sort about "all countries," and you couldn't be just making up this stuff to make yourself look really dumb, because all I'd have to do is ask you to go back and show me where I said that.

What I really said was:

"Third-world countries may possibly be more vulnerable to the subtle influences of hyperpower diplomacy than Spain and Australia, and the degrees of persuasion used by the Empire may vary depending upon the target, as well. If India can stay out of it, good for India, but the Empire may have its ways to make that not so easy."

Ahh, you've moved on to another type of fallacy.

This time I guess you want to show us what a non sequitur is, right, since it's so obvious that what you just posted is consistent with the US being an Empire? I must say, you do a damn good job of illustrating fallacies for us.


Another non sequitur, and a nice one it is, since the credibility of the US isn't being discussed, here. Can you give us another one?


Thank you; now you're showing us yet another non sequitur; it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the US is an Empire. A fine example, indeed.


Lovely, the fallacy of contradiction, since you previously posted:



You've really got this fallacy thing down.

And a great finish with another non sequitur.

Bravo, well done...:notworthy

phaedrus

You were to infer precisely this:

And not that empire is all-pervasive???

Okay, now: here's a little pop quiz: .....snip....What part of this has any speculation on my part? Is what I posted fact of speculation? Can you tell the difference?

You tell me....were they facts or speculations ? And if they were speculations...were they qualifed as being so?

Oh, pickme, pick me! Let me answer that: it probably had something to do with a really big army that could threaten any other country it knew coupled with overwhelming technologic and economic power relative to the times.

Wish granted my child.....and again...what was "world" according to you in those times?

Oh, good; you must be illustrating another fallacy here for our benefit, again. No one could really be foolish enough to post an argument against what I didn't say and claim it was my POV, huh? I mean, not once in this entire thread did I say anything of the sort about "all countries," and you couldn't be just making up this stuff to make yourself look really dumb, because all I'd have to do is ask you to go back and show me where I said that.

Someone asked to describe yourself? An Empire doesn't rule other states by consensus or democracy; it subjugates them to its own will irrespective of what the majority wants...

Thanks, but we got the point; you can stop illustrating more strawmen for us and show us another fallacy.

You like the comfort of "plural" ???(Argumentum ad populum) Dont worry will not ....

This time I guess you want to show us what a non sequitur is, right? It's so obvious that what you just posted has absoulutely nothing to do with whether or not the US is an Empire. I must admit, you do a damn good job of illustrating fallacies for us/

Err....if that is what you think then you must be really confused in terms of comprehension levels and logic. And do these states do whatever the empire wants or are they just keeping silent as the empire goes about doing its things since they dont have the power to stop it...thats a fine line which seems to be eluding thee.

Lovely, the fallacy of contradiction, since you previously posted:

Great the results of lower grey cell count.

What was the statement? Sigh....yes, no one is stating otherwise. However, the problem, making the world do what it wants.....the world not stopping it from doing stupid things is ONE thing...the empire persuading the world to do stupid things is ANOTHER thing.

Are you saying this is different from the so-called empire cant make any nation/government do something it doesnt want to do...if that was the case, US would have been able to convince the whole bloody world about the war on Iraq and it hasnt been able to. That is a fact. I dont see how it is different now



Reductio ad Absurdum...................

Dr Rick

Very good; you finally got one right. Don't apply idiosyncratic definitions or meanings to the words of others.

If you think that there is anything factually incorrect about what I posted, you should state it rather than posting nonsense about speculation.

You're just aimlessly ranting.

The reference was to the world known to the Romans, not that this is really critical to the thread; you appear to be flailing for something to argue.

Pehaps you should not be trying to infer my meaning if you don't understand what I am posting.


...which does not explain nor justify you posting a strawman:

Why you think it might is a mystery.

Perhaps you shouldn't argue strawmen.

Really, now; do you believe that just because you don't see the obvious, no one else but I can? I'm flattered, but spotting your fallacies is quite easy.

Perhaps you should explain the relevance of the question and make a point instead of posting it over and over. Are you under the delusion that an empire can only do one of the other, and must do it 100% of the time, or it's not an empire?

You aren't able to make a point because you don't have one, do you?

That just makes no sense; Your post is irrelevant gibberish. The definition of an empire is neither 'all pervasive" nor is it "being able to get any country to do what it wants" nor is it being able to "persuade the whole bloody world." Why do you insist on repeating this nonsense over and over? Do you think that doing so will make it any less foolish and irrational?

phaedrus

Very good; you finally got one right. Don't apply idiosyncratic definitions or meanings to the words of others.

Or maybe others communication skills need some improvement ?

If you think that there is anything factually incorrect about what I posted, you should state it rather than posting nonsense about speculation.

You're just aimlessly ranting.

Err...rant? Sure thats what you seem to be doing....Dont you even read anglais?????? This is what i said earlier in the thread...WOW, so many conspiracy theories...i am sure you have certain references that will substantiate these?

The reference was to the world known to the Romans, not that this is really critical to the thread; you appear to be flailing for something to argue.

Pehaps you should not be trying to infer my meaning if you don't understand what I am posting.

How can i understand a child's (or a mind of child??) words? If it is not critical...why did you bring up the romans? Was it for some reason like this????
which does not explain nor justify you posting a strawman:

Strawman? What does this statement indicate to you An Empire doesn't rule other states by consensus or democracy; it subjugates them to its own will irrespective of what the majority wants...

Really, now; do you believe that just because you don't see the obvious, no one else but I can? I'm flattered, but spotting your fallacies is quite easy.

Did you recently come across the fallacies? Maybe that is why the wrong and frequent usage....seeing the obvious well yessssssssssss !!!

Perhaps you should explain the relevance of the question and make a point instead of posting it over and over. Are you under the delusion that an empire can only do one of the other, and must do it 100% of the time, or it's not an empire?

Explain ??? Why common english is not easily comprehensible??? What is so difficult to understand in And do these states do whatever the empire wants or are they just keeping silent as the empire goes about doing its things since they dont have the power to stop it...thats a fine line which seems to be eluding thee.

You aren't able to make a point because you don't have one, do you?

Whether there is a point or not, the problem here seems to be that of "wave length"

That just makes no sense; Your post is irrelevant gibberish. The definition of an empire is neither 'all pervasive" nor is it "being able to get any country to do what it wants" nor is it being able to "persuade the whole bloody world." Why do you insist on repeating this nonsense over and over.

He he, why since you cant get it? Repeat? Errr...in case you dont get it....have posted both of them together...since you seem to have found a contradiction in my statements when there isnt one. Comprende???

Dr Rick

Not in the least.

It is not possible to understand why you believe empire means all-persuasive, being able to get any country to do what it wants, and able to persuade the whole bloody world, and then infer from a challenge to your definitions that others' communication skills need some improvement.

It's incomprehensible why you would post a quote from an article that concurs with my pov, just after you had posted another strawman of my pov.

It is not at all clear why you would ask the meaning of the word, world, and when provided with one and also told that it's really not critical to the topic, would then ask why the Romans were brought up if they weren't critical ?

It's beyond any known reasoning why you would create strawmen, and when that's pointed out to you, post other quotes unrelated to them.

It's not at all understandable that you dodge requests to explain the relevance of irrelevant posts by asking 'what is so difficult to understand?'.

It's not clear why you don't see that the problem isn't comprehension, but rather coherence.

It's not the least bit clear what you mean by 'whether there is a point or not, the problem here seems to be that of "wave length" '

It's not clear what you hope to convey through application of the term contradiction to different parts of your word salad than the ones it was describing.

It's simply incomprehensible why you would spew an irrelevant quote about a fool's pride in a nation after I have shown why I am not proud of mine.

If anyone else wishes to address the topic of India and its relation to the the US and the role it plays in the Empire, or challenge my contention that the US is an empire, I'll reply. I apologize for getting so far off-topic with doomed attempts to understand or correct an incomprehesible pile of vomit.