Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
If you think the terrorists threatened US by the 9/11 attacks, and if you think it's just to bombard "part of Afghanistan" or the Al Qaeda camps in a foreign country, why does your government advice the Indian government of exercising restraint? It has been proved that the militants operating in J&K and largely responsible for other violent acts are based in Pakistan. Why doesn't the US let India attack and destroy these bases? Or more importantly why doesn't the US back and help India in such attempts? This entire Afghanistan-Al Qaeda thing has convinced me finally that the US government is nothing but the worst kind of selfish people I can ever find. When it's the question of their honour, they don't hesitate in putting their troops in a foreign country, bully the president of the country into helping them, and then bombard another foreign country. As if they own the world. And when it comes to some other country's honour, they talk world peace and exercising restraint. Why, only the US has the right to protect herself. The rest of the nations should turn to US for their own protection, is it?
I think I can answer your first question. The reason they are asking the Indian government to exercise restraint is because both India and Pakistan have been at each other’s throats for a long time now. Any attack by India on Pakistan will only make matter worse and could escalate the conflict into a nuclear exchange. This is turn could destabilize the whole area and could possibly lead to another world war. Something I’m sure no one wants including you. So I highly doubt the US will advocate or back any attack on either side and will continue to push for peace between the two nations.
The US going into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban government for backing terrorists that have killed thousands around the globe is an entirely different matter. People seem to forget that the Taliban also oppressed its own people and were especially brutal to the women of Afganistan. The US has liberated the Afgan people, killed or captured many of the top leaders responsible for terrorist attacks, and has tried to foster a more democratic government while providing aide to help rebuild the country.
You seem to want the US to not defend itself against state sponsored terrorism that kills innocent civilians around the world and to not foster peace between India and Pakistan? And you want the US to let India attack Pakistan? Are you mad? You do realize all the innocent people that would be killed if war broke out between those two countries. I’m trying hard to understand your logic here but it’s making no sense to me. Let me try to envision Honeybee’s perfect world.
1) The US stays out of Afghanistan and Bin Laden continues to operate a full-scale terrorist organization backed by the Taliban government. In turn Bin Laden continues to kill more innocent civilians in the US and in other countries. The Taliban government also continues to oppress its own people much to the dismay of human rights groups around the globe.
2) The US stays out of the India and Pakistan conflict and lets them resolve it on their own. Eventually without a strong supporter for peace the two nations decide to go to war. A small nuclear exchange between both nations results in the deaths of millions of innocent people.
3) Honeybee is happy because the US is not trying to meddle in foreign affairs and not using its military to defend itself.
Sounds like utopia huh? At least you would be happy. To bad it has to come at the cost of many innocent lives.
Quote:
If the Japanese can produce better cars than the Americans and by using lesser steel, I think I would say Japan is technologically more advanced. Rather than focussing on big flashy and noisy cars, they seem to have concentrated on a more functional car. I don't know much about the US import and export laws, but I am sure we shall find some interesting facts out of them aimed at stopping the Japs taking over the US markets. I heard a few months back that the Japs control most major Hollywood studios.
Wow the US trying to protect its own business and jobs in its own country! Imagine that. And if I think if you look at the Japanese import and export laws I think you will find them much more strict as to what they allow in. Hollywood studios? Talk about coming out of left field. What does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
Coming to think of it, when the US is trying to disarm and de-nuke "other" countries under the pretext of making the world a safer place to live, I think Japan has actually presented a very good example of what a country can do by actually not spending a dime on military. And forget not, my dear friend, this situation is the US's own doing. If they hadn't nuked Japan, this would never have occured. The US didn't agree to protect Japan out of sympathy or world peace. They have been paying for their heinous act.
The US is the protector of Japan because after they surrendered the agreement stated that they were not allowed to keep a military. Protecting them and not letting them have a military is not done out of sympathy, its so the Japanese do not attempt to attack their neighbors again. As for dropping the two nukes, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the nuclear blasts and that was achieved through conventional means. Historians also believe that dropping the two bombs brought a quick end to what would have been a very long and very bloody invasion of Japan that would have resulted in more loss of life on both sides. And if you want an account of truly heinous acts look into what the Japanese did to the nations they conquered during WWII or to the PoW’s they captured.
