scott3x said:I would contend that if islamic nations had the amount of firepower americans had, it'd only be worse. I don't have any studies that contend this, it's just a feeling I have. I think it's safe to say that it's much easier to criticize the empire then it is to criticize everyone else simply because all eyes are focused on it.
I'll only give the example of India. Which is the experience I have. After 800 years of Mughal Rule, Indians had their own culture, language and the diverse philosophies that embraced Muslims and Christians. We were a rich country that everyone traded with [possibly the richest].
After 200 years of the British, we were a Third World nation, divided as Hindus vs Others, partitioned, poor and illiterate.
I don't believe that it's as simple as you portray it to be.
Name the last problem that was solved by war in the Middle East.
Native Americans still live on reservations. They are still fighting for their rights [e.g. water rights].
Structural adjustment policy spreads hunger and inequity, it is the dominant economic policy of western nations.
And Eastern ones, yes. Thankyou; "we" do not wish to trade our inequities for yours.
scott3x said:leopold99 said:you must realize scott that sam is sciforums propaganda minister, and she lays it on with a trowel.
If she were being paid to do what she does, it could lead to some rather difficult questions for her; but I seriously doubt that's the case. It sounds more like she's simply defending her belief system.
Yeah, like putting natives on reservations, replacing populations with those who are "better", creating the Third world, undermining developing countries to keep them poor and exploit their resources, using resources without restraint, creating bigger and more destructive weapons, having a war every year with those who are unable to defend themselves, testing their weapons on the defenceless, killing people indiscriminately and acting like you're doing them a favor, increasing hunger and social disparity, building an unsustainable environment and lifestyle. Etc.
now do you understand what i meant scott?
scott3x said:I don't believe that it's as simple as you portray it to be.
Uh, what do your points have to do with the results of both the Mughals [800 years] and British [200 years] dominance and their consequences for India and its citizens?
S.A.M. said:And my other points, which you may have missed:
Native Americans still live on reservations.
S.A.M. said:They are still fighting for their rights [e.g. water rights].
S.A.M. said:Structural adjustment policy spreads hunger and inequity, it is the dominant economic policy of western nations.
SAM, please respond to post #274 since you were so intent on condemning me for my OP and trying to make me out to be a racist or Muslim-hater while at the same time condemning the country I come from based on stereotypes as well as making hypocritical statements that you so readily denounce others for and accuse them of making.
wholly in the sway of the US and the most intolerant country in the world.
After 800 years of Mughal rule, India was a poor, illiterate, caste-ridden, subdivided nation whose population of less than 150 million (including Pakistan) was stabilized by disease, government oppression (including taxation for war, etc), and malnutrition. It was rich only in comparison with the pre-industrial economies of plague-ridden wintry Europe and the epidemic blasted Americas.SAM said:After 800 years of Mughal Rule, Indians had their own culture, language and the diverse philosophies that embraced Muslims and Christians. We were a rich country that everyone traded with [possibly the richest].
After 200 years of the British, we were a Third World nation, divided as Hindus vs Others, partitioned, poor and illiterate.
SAM's point about the structural adjustment stuff is well taken. The Westerner's here seem to have very little idea what their own countries have been up to in foreign lands.SAM said:And Eastern ones, yes. Thankyou; "we" do not wish to trade our inequities for yours.
”
You don't know what structural adjustment policy is, do you?
After 800 years of Mughal rule, India was a poor, illiterate, caste-ridden, subdivided nation whose population of less than 150 million (including Pakistan) was stabilized by disease, government oppression (including taxation for war, etc), and malnutrition. It was rich only in comparison with the pre-industrial economies of plague-ridden wintry Europe and the epidemic blasted Americas.
After 200 years of British rule, the population had more than doubled (I believe you use that as a criterion of "thriving", as opposed to "dying", when referring to modern cultures) and such features as the caste system had been thrown into doubt. Also, the country was unified politically (as well as by railroads etc).
99.9% do so by thier own choice. native americans also occupy positions in the US government.Native Americans still live on reservations.
as do plenty of other people sam.They are still fighting for their rights [e.g. water rights].
what are you referring to here, capitalism?Structural adjustment policy spreads hunger and inequity, it is the dominant economic policy of western nations.
You're comparing the ethnic cleansing of native Americans to gender issues?
S.A.M. said:And you still missed my point about the Mughal vs the British. To the British, we were subhuman, like the niggers, reds and abos.
S.A.M. said:When they waxed eloquently in their Parliament on the Magna Carta and human rights, the coolie and the nigger were not a part of the equation.
S.A.M. said:It's the same way today, in their dealings with developing countries. When they force farmers to go bankrupt to fill their pockets, human rights are not considered applicable to those who will die of starvation to sustain their unsustainable societies.
S.A.M. said:It's a huge joke to see the Americans pouring billions and trillions to save their jobs when they have been forcing the "free market" on the developing world, forcing people to lose their jobs, be driven into extreme poverty and starvation rather than help them.
S.A.M. said:Of course the page looks vastly different when it turns on your own society.
It is brainless stupidity to think it has anything to do with religion and it is careless and knee jerk reading to think I was making amy comment on the legality of the issue.
You don't know anything about structural adjustment policy too, do you?
Here is some homework
1. In which developing countries has western intervention brought more democracy, without war?
S.A.M. said:2. In which country, since 1920 did the west support an elected government over a dictator? And vice versa?
S.A.M. said:3. Why is there the pattern you see in 1 and 2?
S.A.M. said:Some hints:
The Saud kingdom was established with the help of the British.
Also the Kuwaiti kingdom
Iran had a parliament in 1905, brought down by the British. Again in 1952, brought down by the Americans
S.A.M. said:Afghanistan had a democratic movement, albeit communist by the 1970s. Pakistan only gets billions when a dictator is in power
Your sources probably will do. You just have to read them - compare population estimates, etc.SAM said:Where do you get your info? I got mine off of the British description of pre-British India and our own history post British.
you need to realize something scott, most of what sam claims as foreign policy of the US was actually clandestine operations of the CIA that was made available by the FOIA. at the time these events happened the US government AND the people had no knowledge of these events.I'm fine with admitting that the U.S. and others have made some big mistakes regarding foreign policy. I don't believe it takes away from the points I've already made, however.
Not really. There are a lot of women and men who suffer in silence and who never report their abuse.
Attitude does not always work though. While the general public perception is one of abhorrence, that abhorrence does not always travel to the home front. For example, a police officer will arrest and jail a person who has abused their spouse and then go home and beat up his/her spouse or partner.
In a lot of cases, the battered spouse will stick up for their abuser and refuse to press charges and the abuser comes home to repeat the cycle.
I have seen it countless of times. If the West was that zealous about enforcing their domestic violence laws, the figures wouldn't be that high.
And hitting women also occurs more frequently than we'd like. Doesn't make us better than anyone else.
Before we start pointing fingers, we should quietly remind ourselves that it also occurs in our own society.
Before we start saying we are somehow better and demand action in Muslim societies with such high figures, we should also be pointing the finger at our own society and demanding that we be better.