I'm talking about the ethos of the country; Indians for instance would never vote for invading a country on such flimsy principles and nor would they consider that using corporations to deprive people of livelihood is a good thing.
Firstly, I have never met a person who thinks depriving people of their livelihood is a good thing. Is there an example you'd like to provide?
Secondly, it hard for me to really accept your statement as I am the one who is against the invasion of Iraq and think that the conquest of Persia was equally as wrong and think conquering polytheistic Arabs was wrong as well – while you are the one who thinks the Iraq invasion was not warranted but the Persian and Arabs - they had it coming.
And no its not my job to tell you how your economy functions. You are the people with the power, right? Use it to educate yourself.
This is code for: I have no idea what I am talking about. I like to say things like “globalization” is bad “capitalism” is starving children to dead but when pressed I really have no idea.
NOTE: The websites you posted were
pro-globalization SAM. They were also
pro-Capitalism. The point was that they think there is not enough free in the free-trade between poor countries and rich and that barriers should come down in the rich so that poor can export their produce to the rich. I actually agree with them. I buy pomegranate juice from Iran, lychee juice from Africa and goji fruit from Tibet. As long as they, hopefully, don’t use banned pesticides then I am happy to do business with my shopping cart.
Like for example, the 800 years of Mughal rule in India vs the 200 years of British colonialism. Which one led to the partition of a Muslim Pakistan?
You seem to think one precludes the other. I agree British colonialism was wrong but that doesn’t mean a Monarchy is therefore beneficial. A Monarchy can function well when there is a great leader but when one gets a crap leader then it’s horrendous – which is why Democracy is a better option. Because one WILL show up. But Democracy has its faults too - democracy can only work when people make semi-educated decisions. The best is a
secular Democracy where people are educated. As this puts a lot of power in the hands of the
Citizens with that power comes a lot of responsibility. Perhaps you’d rather a Monarch do the thinking for you, I will stick with a Republic thank you.
Wiki:
The language of the court was Persian although most of the subjects of the Empire were Hindu. The dynasty remained unstable until the reign of Akbar, who was of liberal disposition and intimately acquainted, since birth, with the mores and traditions of India. Under Akbar's rule, the court abolished the jizya (the poll-tax on non-Muslims) and abandoned use of the lunar Muslim calendar in favor of a solar calendar more useful for agriculture. One of Akbar's most unusual ideas regarding religion was Din-i-Ilahi ("Faith-of-God" in English), which was an eclectic mix of Hinduism, versions of Sufi Islam, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Christianity. It was proclaimed the state religion until his death. These actions however met with stiff opposition from the Muslim clergy, especially by the Sufi Shaykh Alf Sani Ahmad Sirhindi.
The Mughal emperor Akbar is remembered as tolerant, at least by the standards of the day: only one major massacre was recorded during his long reign (1556–1605), when he ordered most of the captured inhabitants of a fort be slain on February 24, 1568, after the battle for Chitor. Akbar's acceptance of other religions and toleration of their public worship, his abolition of poll-tax on non-Muslims, and his interest in other faiths bespeak an attitude of considerable religious tolerance, which, in the minds of his orthodox Muslim opponents, was tantamount to apostasy. Its high points were the formal declaration of his own infallibility in all matters of religious doctrine, his promulgation of a new creed, and his adoption of Hindu and Zoroastrian festivals and practices.
Religious orthodoxy would only play a truly important role during the reign of Aurangzeb Ālamgīr, a devout Muslim and the man responsible for many atrocities and eventual downfall of the Mughal empire; this last of the Great Mughals retracted the liberal policies of his forbears. Although under Aurangzeb, the empire extended to its largest, his rule was thus less popular with the Hindu Rajputs, and with the rise to military power of the Sikhs, may have been the prime factor in the downfall of the Mughals.
Western ideology breeds dissent and separatism; they refuse to accommodate other ideologies, in fact destroy everything they cross.
yeah, that whole “lets tax the infidel” thing is soooo much more enlightened. Yeah, they were soooo accommodating when they blew those 2500 year old Buddhist statues to smithereens. Yes Islam is a testament to pluralism – just look at all the Synagogues, Churches and Arab Polytheistic temples on the Arabian peninsula. Yeah, look at all the Zoroastrian fire-temples in Iran. Taxing people based on their personal belief – there’s a accommodation for ya.
Much better than those evil “Western” ideologies like - the banning of Slavery , or how legal equality between women and men, or a Civil government?
Evil stuff those "ideologies" – it’s a wonder the Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, Honkongese, Singaporeans, etc.. etc.. etc.. are still alive!
One more time in case we missed it:
Western ideology breeds dissent and separatism; they refuse to accommodate other ideologies,
religion was Din-i-Ilahi ("Faith-of-God" in English), which was an eclectic mix of Hinduism, versions of Sufi Islam, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Christianity. It was proclaimed the state religion until his death. These actions however met with stiff opposition from the Muslim clergy,
Michael
Are they supposed to fulfill NPT obligations even though they don't apparently have nukes?? Geez, you're sure stringent about international politics.
