U.S. Foreign policy

Economically, China is our friend. Politically, China is our enemy. And the Chinese are steadily modernizing their military and expanding their sea and air capabilities.
 
iceaura said:
It's a militarized thug country that exports violence and supports oppressive religious factions all over the place.
Click to expand...

What is America in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I find it rather informative that whenever the Americans criticize their opponents, they seem to describe themselves rather than their enemies.

iceaura said:
Yah, they love the Taliban, all those Afghanis - especially the women, no longer burdened with schooling, jobs, medical care, or travel. And the half of the Bengalis - presumably the half that the Pakistani military did not target in what some sources who specialize in such matters term one of the half dozen worst atrocities of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

The Taliban were a decentralized and city-level government. There was very little federal control. What was true in some parts of Afghanistan was completely opposite in other parts. One thing, however, that they did bring was peace and stability after 50 years of war. Something the US completely destroyed in a matter of a few years. The Taliban were still far better than Karzai, who is a known criminal, drug dealer, and has launched an ethnic cleansing policy against native Pathans. You believe Taliban were bad, Karzai is a thousand times worse for Afghanistan. The way to deal with Afghanistan is through peace, because whenever you start war in Afghanistan, it has a tendency to go on for decades. In the end it is the civilians which suffer the most. Almost half of Afghans have lived in neighboring Pakistan to escape violence at some time in their lives, whether it is caused by Russian, Afghani Warlords, or Americans.


iceaura said:
I'm sure Tibet is forever grateful for its delivery into the hands of China, and Bangladesh for whatever protection it received against any India forces that would treat them even worse than the Pakistani forces did, and Kashmir for the pretense that it is not part of India and the constant threat of violence that supports the pretense, and Sri Lanka for whatever Pakistan has done to promote its current state of civil war and terrorism,

but really, I think Pakistan has done enough favors for its neighbors.
Click to expand...

You have major problems. I am sorry. Is there any proof that Pakistan has involved itself Sri Lanka and Tibet?

Bangladesh, as I stated, is evenly divided between Pro-Pakistan, Pan-Islamic population and Anti-Pakistan Secular Nationalists and Communists. No matter of Indian or Bengali Nationalist propaganda will change that a large population in Bengladesh still love Pakistan.

As far as Kashmir, Kashmiris, by and large, support Pakistan because Pakistan supports their cause for freedom and the spirit of freedom throughout South Asia. Kashmir will inevitably join Pakistan, as that is where the will of the people resides, it is only a matter of time.
 
Diamond, why cannot you support you miriad and many allegations with not one single fact?
 
Go to my previous posts. I have already stated it.

If you deny it, I don't care. I have stated my view on the matter.
 
diamond said:
t's a militarized thug country that exports violence and supports oppressive religious factions all over the place.
”
What is America in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Click to expand...
Similar, and no better excused - includiing in its dealings with, and support of, Pakistan. Why do you ask ? Does America'as behavior excuse Pakistan's ?

diamond said:
ou have major problems. I am sorry. Is there any proof that Pakistan has involved itself Sri Lanka and Tibet?
Click to expand...
None that I know of. I took you at your assertion, for the sake of argument and to avoid that tangent in the main point.

If you were being deceptive and dishonest again, I am perfectly happy to renounce any claims of my own based on information from you. It doesn't change my argument.
diamond said:
Kashmir will inevitably join Pakistan, as that is where the will of the people resides, it is only a matter of time
Click to expand...
And that is coincident with "freedom" for the Kashmiris, in your view. How many of the Kashmiris want independence, rather than conjoinment with Pakistan ? Will they have a say ?
 
You two hardly classify as everyone.

What credibility do two anti-Muslim Americans have in relation to Pakistan, India, and Kashmir?

I want to know the sources of your propaganda, where did you learn what you are trying to convince me of? Personal experience? Growing up in Kashmir? Tell me.
 
It is the calling of good people throughout the world to fight for the right of Kashmir to be free from Indian occupation and genocide, regardless of the opposition they may face.

Those people who justify India's hold on Kashmir are denying freedom to the Kashmiri people, and this is one of the greatest injustice a person can do to brave, courageous people of Kashmir.

Kashmiri people have had their Paradise turn to a Hellfire because the world has condoned and stood silent against the rape of its women, kidnapping of its children, torturing of its young men, and murder against its noble people.

Kashmir cannot live forever in this position, so I am trying to make people aware of the horrible situation which is happening against my brothers and sisters in Kashmir.

If you have any humanity, support Kashmir's freedom from Indian occupation. Force your government leaders to toughen their resolve on Kashmir and force India to accept UN observed plebiscite as it had promised.

Every day which goes by, more innocent Kashmiris die. We must put an end to this.
 
Let me get this straight Diamond, you are saying because I disagree with your positions, I am anti-Muslim? That is quite a stretch of ego and logic! Your arguements here would be perfect material for a class in logic as a demonstration of illogical thought and arguement.

If you were not so serious, you would be funny. You have not proven any of your many outrageous allegations. You have barely made an attempt to prove them. If you want people to believe you, you need facts not allegations. You keep calling those who disagree with you names. You have called us Republican and now Anti-Muslim. The truth is I am for people. I am for truth. I call things as I see them. You are using the same lack of logic and deception methods used by Republicans in this country. So yes, I oppose those that would and do distort the truth to further their nefarious deeds.

I sided with the Bosnians when they were being slaughtered by the Christians. I side with the Palestinians in many of their issues with Israel (less any and all acts of terrorism). And I ask you to produce some real facts to support your claims with respect to Kashmir, and that makes me Anti-Muslim? Come on, you are better than that.

Now I do not know if you are knowingly being decitful or just a victim of others. But I would encourage you to have an open mind, as much as possible, and look for the truth. Use fact to substianciate your claims and reasoning...not emotional rhetoric. For now, you are no better than the Republicans you complain about.

There are dangerous people in the world today on all sides. George W. Bush is one of them. You are another...same methods...same ends...different story line.
 
Last edited:
For the most part, at least in my experience Republicans are Anti-Muslim. Even if you don't exactly classify yourself as a Republican, you buy all this propaganda directly from them.

It is naive and dishonest to put me to compare me to George Bush, as I do not advocate the military invasions into sovereign nations nor interfere in the legitimate aspirations of colonized nations.

I have seen first hand the horror and savagery from war. I am for a just and peaceful resolution to conflicts, if possible. Otherwise, I do support armed struggle against an aggressive foreign military power occupying another, as I do in Kashmir.

Indian actions in Kashmir are being allowed by the US government to proceed with full knowledge of the harm that India is doing to Kashmir's defenseless population. The invasion and destruction of Afghanistan is a further complication to the region, and because of US meddling in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and secret deals with India to stay out of Kashmir in exchange for increased business with India. The US wishes to strengthen India, even at the result of destabilizing Pakistan (which has remained a strong US ally and anti-Communist country throughout its history).

In this world, it is not principles, but dollars which speak loudest. The flow of cash into America's arms makes it rather easy to forget about the bloodbath in Kashmir. Not to mention America's increased hostility with the Muslim world and need of a strong counterweight to what some Republicans see as the possibility of another Islamic revolution, this time in a country other than Iran, which may have a domino effect in the region.

There is also the need to balance China and arms deals, which India may also serve.
 
 
S.A.M. said:
Any mention of the Hindu Kashmiris?
Click to expand...

Provide links if you have them. Though the genocidal policy of India is squarely meted out against the majority Muslims, it has been related to me that many Hindus and Sikhs are also anti-Indian occupation. The All Parties Hurriyet Conference has Hindu members as well as Muslim members.
 
I mean, what is Pakistan doing about them? For them? Considering its support for Kashmir.
 
diamond said:
I want to know the sources of your propaganda, where did you learn what you are trying to convince me of?
Click to expand...
I am getting my info on your arguments and reactions and responses from you, here on this forum.

For example:
diamond said:
For the most part, at least in my experience Republicans are Anti-Muslim. Even if you don't exactly classify yourself as a Republican, you buy all this propaganda directly from them.
Click to expand...

The average Republican in the US couldn't find Pakistan on an unlabeled map, and if you showed them the outline of the country on a globe (without the "stan" name) would do no better than chance at guessing the local religion(s). The Republican faction of American national governance is allied or associated with Pakistan, and suppresses rather than exaggerates denigrating info about the country. No one from the US on this forum hates Pakistan because of Republican propaganda, OK ?
 
Since Diamond has chosen not to come clean on the facts of Kashmir, I will share the following the readers of this forum:

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
The irregular Pakistani tribals made rapid advances into Kashmir (Baramulla sector) after the rumours that the Maharaja was going to decide for the union with India. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir asked the Government of India to intervene. However, the Government of India pointed out that India and Pakistan had signed an agreement of non-intervention (maintenance of the status quo) in Jammu and Kashmir; and although tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered Jammu and Kashmir, there was, until then, no iron-clad legal evidence to unequivocally prove that the Government of Pakistan was officially involved. It would have been illegal for India to unilaterally intervene (in an open, official capacity) unless Jammu and Kashmir officially joined the Union of India, at which point it would be possible to send in its forces and occupy the remaining parts.

The Maharaja desperately needed the Indian military's help when the Pathan tribal invaders reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Before their arrival into Srinagar, India argues that Maharaja Hari Singh completed negotiations for acceding Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving military aid. The agreement which ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten.[2]

The resulting war over Kashmir, the First Kashmir War, lasted until 1948, when India moved the issue to the UN Security Council. The UN previously had passed resolutions setting up for the monitoring of the conflict in Kashmir. The committee it set up was called the United Nations Committee for India and Pakistan. Following the set up of the UNCIP the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948. The resolution imposed that an immediate cease-fire take place and said that Pakistan should withdraw all presence and had no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. It stated that India should retain a minimum military presence and stated "that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". The cease fire took place December 31, 1948.

At that time, the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite but Pakistan did not withdraw it's troops from Kashmir thus violating the condition for holding the plebiscite. Over the next several years, the UN Security Council passed four new resolutions, revising the terms of Resolution 47 to include a synchronous withdrawal of both Indian and Pakistani troops from the region, per the recommendations of General Andrew McNaughton. To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the demilitarization of the region - every one of which was accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict
 
So why were Junaghad and Hyderabad invaded and forcefully annexed to India, even though the Muslim kings signed treaties of ascension with Pakistan?

So the Hindu majority kingdoms are allowed to be forcefully annexed to India, while Kashmir, a Muslim majority Pro-Pakistan kingdom, was not allowed to go to Pakistan because its king signed it over to India last minute under pressure to chose between Muslim popular will for Pakistan and Indian military duress?

India violated the Treaty of Ascension in both Hyderabad and Junaghad, and violates the principles of the partition in Kashmir, with British complicity. The Muslim majority district of Firozpur and its British military garrison was given to India a the last moment. The British did not want Pakistan to last.

Kashmir does not belong to India, and never will, because the people's will is firmly opposed to Indian rule. We might have had a situation of peace if India allowed greater autonomy in Kashmir and established friendly relationships with Pakistan, but India was against partition from day one.

The British Viceroy Louis Mountbatten stated himself that he relished the fact that Pakistan would at a later date be absorbed by India.

After careful study of the situation, one will realize what a great travesty of justice has been dealt to the Kashmiris, Pakistanis, and Indian Muslims. We were cheated and lied to, and then the British simply turned the odds in favor of India by giving Kashmir, Firozpur, Junaghad, and Hyderabad to India without any compromise.

Thousands of Kashmiris have died at the hand of the brutal conflict in Kashmir, those who support the occupation have no human decency or compassion. Kashmiri people are lambs left to the slaughter of the Indian military. I simply do not understand that hatred and violence can be so much in people outside the region, living in the West, that they oppose freedom for a people because they are Muslim. There is no excuse for this.
 
joepistole said:
I beg to differ with you on Japan and WW II. Japan did invade and occupy lands of the United States. More specifically they invaded and occupied parts of Alaska. Also the Phillipines was a possesion of the United States at the time...won from the Spanish in the Spanish American War. And the Japanese forcibly invaded and occupied the land. So it was more than just an attack on Pear Harbor.
The Pacific Fleet was decimated by the attack except for a few carrieers and submarines. At the time, the United States Navy did not place a great deal of value on the carriers. It was still a battleship fleet. While the Japanesse fleet had a full compliment of battleships, carriers, destroyers, and submarines. Not one of them was lost in any military campaign up to that point. A few months later the remaining carriers of the United States Pacific fleet met and destroyed a signficant portion of Japans carriers at Midway. At the battle of Midway, the American fleet was out numbered and out gunned. But they won. Because the United States Navy had decoded the Japaneses Naval code and were expecting them. The American fleet caught the Japanese feet with their pants down as they were attacking Midway.
Japan also launched small attacks against the mainland United States. Granted they were small and insignificant. But they still dropped bombs on the mainland, and had plans do do more. The bombs were dropped from an aircraft launched from a modified submarine. Other bombs were dropped via ballon. The only casualties were a few kids and a mom.
Click to expand...

I know this is old, but I'll respond to it anyway.

Granted, The japanese caught you by surprise, granted they had sea superiority and speed in the pacific. But aside from those few bombs on continental US, Were the japanese ever in a serious position to take and hold the US ? They may have taken one island, and the pacific islands, but the heart of the US, the cities of Chicago, L.A, New York, were all safe and sound. Whislt the British, had London under constant attack, and the threat of invasion from germany was very, very real.

The answer to that question is no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top