[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: the truth about America....



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
==== ON A SIDE NOTE ====
Please check the "To:" address when you reply to any messages. Somehow
everyone is replying to debate@indiapolicy.org twice, which is resulting
in
two messages being sent to me (and possibly everybody else as well).
==== END OF SIDE NOTE ====

> This is exactly what I would imply!!  India offers just the same kind
of
opportunities
> but many immigrants look for an easy way out!  Also, I believe Mr.
Rahul
has drawn some
> conclusions about me in his post which are rude and unsubstantiated.
They
are possibly
> driven only by his own personal prejudices.
>
> Sincerely,
> Vamsi M.

To begin with, I apologize Mr. Vamsi, if you feel you have been
offended. I
have rather enjoyed having at least one person in this debate that does
not
share my opinions on all matters. That person is you, Mr. Vamsi
(especially
on the nuclear weapons issue). I take intense pleasure in my
disagreements
with people, because it helps me both consolidate my own viewpoints and
also
introduces me to ideas that I am not very familiar with. Some of my
enthusiasm might indeed have been misdirected. I will attempt to refrain

from doing so in the future.

Further, Mr. Vamsi posted earlier, "Ya, all the brothuz are now climbing
up
the horse's ass and trying to preach to us about 'brotherhood'...". I
merely
point out that I have not come across a statement more "rude and
unsubstantiated" in this debate than this particular one.

On a related note, Mr. Vamsi mentions that he believes my views are
"possibly driven by [my] own personal prejudices." I am not sure how
anybody's posts could be driven by anything other than that person's own

judgements, opinions and yes in some cases, prejudices. Similarly, Mr.
Vamsi's posts seem to also have been driven largely by his own personal
prejudices. I am prejudiced against the notion of building huge
stockpiles
of nuclear weapons for the purposes of offense, whereas he is prejudiced

against the notion of not doing so. I do not see what is wrong by having

views that are "possibly driven only by [my] own personal prejudices"
especially when he is clearly allowed to have the same.

In his response to Mr. Priyo's post, Mr. Vamsi mentioned "Mr. Priyo must

realize that America has done nothing for him!  His will to survive and
his
determination to do well have made all the difference!" From this, I see
no
fault in my conclusion that "[Mr. Vamsi] is the one who believes the
entire
reason for his current status of prosperity in the United States is
because
of his and only his hard work." If Mr. Vamsi does not believe this is
so, I
would appreciate it if he would be kind enough to inform us of his true
opinion in this matter and what he really meant by his response to Mr.
Priyo, although I do respect his privacy and his right to not share that

opinion.

Also, in an earlier response to Mr. Priyo, he mentioned, "we ARE those
Jihadis!!". Hence again I see no error in concluding that Mr. Vamsi
believes
he is a Jihadi in my previous post.

Finally, I asked on that post, "Why not include the other extreme
nationalists on this debate? A certain Mr. Vamsi comes to mind." This
was
indeed a rash categorization and it came out quite unlike I had intended
to.
I would like to publically withdraw the term "extreme nationalists" from
my
question, and replace it with "participants". I also admit that I do not

know Mr. Vamsi enough to be able to correctly categorize him as anything

other than a participant in this debate. However, I have always
considered
people who advocate the development of military power (and especially
nuclear weapons for offensive purposes) as extremists, because it has
not
been the view of the majority of the people I have discussed the issue
with.
And although Mr. Vamsi does not reside in India, I think he would like
us to
all agree that he is a nationalist, despite his refusal to believe that
other Indians residing abroad can be the same. If this is not hypocrisy,
I
do not know what is. Perhaps Mr. Vamsi is a part of the Indian
diplomatic
entourage in the United States? If I am incorrect in concluding that Mr.

Vamsi is a nationalist, please inform me accordingly.

Mr. Vamsi wrote:
> There are 500,000 babies dying each year due to the hare-brained
American
> foreign policies in Iraq and to this day (10 years later) the educated

masses
> in America cannot see past the hypocrisy of their own Government.  So,
I
am
> wondering if the uneducated masses in India are a greater threat to
world's
> liberty than the educated and almighty Americans with their power to
silence
> the world through use of military force?!

This American power is precisely why I am against India aiming to be the

worlds foremost military power. Power in the world needs to be balanced.
It
needs to be balanced to save India and maintain a strong India. A weak
military India is in grave danger, and an overtly powerful India is a
great
danger to itself, let alone the rest of the world. The danger to itself
lies
in the potential for the same hypocrisy that one would accuse the
American
Government of. Balance is a good thing. Imbalance produces the situation
Mr.
Vamsi described above in Iraq. Ironically, the entire Iraqi situation
was
caused by yet another imbalance that took place over the decades until
1991 - the buildup of military power in Iraq leading to the invasion of
Kuwait. Prior to that, I am not very familiar with what happened during
the
creation of Kuwait, although that will be my homework for this weekend.

I do not pretend to know any perfect answers on how to solve the Iraqi
situation, but this is something I do not understand. If 500,000 babies
are
dying each year in Iraq, why do the citizens of Iraq still praise and
cheer
for their leader Saddam Hussein (SH)? After all, isn't he the leader to
brought them to this situation? Where is the logic in that support they
sing
and chant for him? Logically, shouldn't there be some sort of strong
public
sentiment against SH in Iraq, enough to eventually topple him from
leadership? Or, even worse, do the people of Iraq care for their
president
so much that their own babies are of secondary importance? Perhaps my
weakness is that I am trying to apply logic to international politics.

Sincerely,

Rahul Mittal



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------