TheBigJerk:

Gah. Can't believe I brain-farted on that. I know how to spell Shah, really....

And I do get your point about similar countries in the region being able to pull themselves out of the mess they were put in by the exit of the British Empire and being used as pawns in the Cold War. Most of the ones that did, though either had no resources that the First World government cared about, or discovered the best thing to do was to not play the game (Jordan, Egypt under Sadat).

Personally, my view is to pull out all American troops in the region, redeploy as many of them as Israel would allow in that country, and say 'Okay, you guys figure all this out. No more support except for medicine and humanitarian supplies'. And get serious about getting the US off the petroleum teat; that's the biggest thing preventing us from pulling up our stakes in the region.

RoyFokker'sGhost: Gyrfalcon: But it's all America's fault, for some reason....

Because we added to the instability of the region by setting up Musharif in Pakistan and keeping him in power and financing the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Commies.

America's policy in the Middle East and Central Asia since the mid-60's has been 'support whatever homicidal maniac is in charge as long as they're anti communist and give us a price break on oil if they have any.'

Suadi Arabia: keeping the House of Saud in power despite the Saud's extremist religious views and police state tactics that the Gestapo could take notes from.
Iraq: Keeping Saddam Hussien in power despite well-documented and well-known use of chemical weapons testing on ethnic Kurds from the 1980's onward
Iran: Financing the overthrow of an elected socialist government in order to put the Shaw in power, financing the Shaw's pretty brutal regime and even giving him an actual US Treasury printing press because gotta keep him happy
Afghanistan: Financing of the Mujahadeen to fight an insurrigent war against the Soviet occupation, looking the other way after the Soviets left which allowed the Taliban to rise to power from the Mujahadeen framework.
Pakistan: Aiding General Mushariff in a military coup, providing him with fund to continue turning Pakistan into a military police state so that there would be a second aggressor on China's south border. The US just underestimated that the Pakistanis would hate the Indians more than the Chinese.

That part of the world doesn't hate the US because of the freedoms we enjoy, they hate us because we support the rulers that torture, main, and kill their families.

Even when America didn't actively cause a revolution, we usually meddled and nudged things, and while in many cases there is NO reason to believe that those semi-colonies would be better off if we hadn't meddled, there's that rule of "you touched it last, it's yours," in play.

Also, it's spelled "Shah"

Funny thing though, I understand the point about how these countries suck, it's not like they pull themselves up by their bootstraps when we leave, even though they COULD and even though other countries in similar situations HAVE.

But the wonderful thing I have discovered about blame? No matter how much of it is already assigned, there is always more to go around.

Gyrfalcon: RoyFokker'sGhost: casual disregard: Lunaville: The collected whole: China and India saber-rattling (for what cause? to what end?); China's' communist paper proving to be a capitalist success: it all makes me think I may as well take up drinking.

They've had wars in recent history. They still have a major border dispute. Apparently all of Asia is basically a ton of unresolved borders.

Mostly courtesy of the British Empire pullout, where the Brits established borders that ignored tribal, ethnic, and religious lines as a final 'Fark you! We didn't want to be here anyways!'

But it's all America's fault, for some reason....

Because we added to the instability of the region by setting up Musharif in Pakistan and keeping him in power and financing the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Commies.

America's policy in the Middle East and Central Asia since the mid-60's has been 'support whatever homicidal maniac is in charge as long as they're anti communist and give us a price break on oil if they have any.'

Suadi Arabia: keeping the House of Saud in power despite the Saud's extremist religious views and police state tactics that the Gestapo could take notes from.
Iraq: Keeping Saddam Hussien in power despite well-documented and well-known use of chemical weapons testing on ethnic Kurds from the 1980's onward
Iran: Financing the overthrow of an elected socialist government in order to put the Shaw in power, financing the Shaw's pretty brutal regime and even giving him an actual US Treasury printing press because gotta keep him happy
Afghanistan: Financing of the Mujahadeen to fight an insurrigent war against the Soviet occupation, looking the other way after the Soviets left which allowed the Taliban to rise to power from the Mujahadeen framework.
Pakistan: Aiding General Mushariff in a military coup, providing him with fund to continue turning Pakistan into a military police state so that there would be a second aggressor on China's south border. The US just underestimated that the Pakistanis would hate the Indians more than the Chinese.

That part of the world doesn't hate the US because of the freedoms we enjoy, they hate us because we support the rulers that torture, main, and kill their families.

casual disregard: Lunaville: The collected whole: China and India saber-rattling (for what cause? to what end?); China's' communist paper proving to be a capitalist success: it all makes me think I may as well take up drinking.

They've had wars in recent history. They still have a major border dispute. Apparently all of Asia is basically a ton of unresolved borders.

Mostly courtesy of the British Empire pullout, where the Brits established borders that ignored tribal, ethnic, and religious lines as a final 'Fark you! We didn't want to be here anyways!'

Smoking GNU: I might have oversimplified the matter i admit.

On further reflection, I think the best way to state this is that both China and India need an external distraction from their crushing social problems at home, and they can't use their best customer (us) anymore. We are starting to notice.

Lunaville: The collected whole: China and India saber-rattling (for what cause? to what end?); China's' communist paper proving to be a capitalist success: it all makes me think I may as well take up drinking.

China wants india. India HATES china. They Fought a war with each other in the last 50 years, some of the border is still in dispute, i believe.

Imagine if the entire Central american region teamed up and had invaded the US in the 60s (lets assume the US didn't have Nukes by then, for argument sake) Don't you think a similar relationship would have developed?

RoyFokker'sGhost: Gyrfalcon: RoyFokker'sGhost: casual disregard: Lunaville: The collected whole: China and India saber-rattling (for what cause? to what end?); China's' communist paper proving to be a capitalist success: it all makes me think I may as well take up drinking.

They've had wars in recent history. They still have a major border dispute. Apparently all of Asia is basically a ton of unresolved borders.

Mostly courtesy of the British Empire pullout, where the Brits established borders that ignored tribal, ethnic, and religious lines as a final 'Fark you! We didn't want to be here anyways!'

But it's all America's fault, for some reason....

Because we added to the instability of the region by setting up Musharif in Pakistan and keeping him in power and financing the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Commies.

America's policy in the Middle East and Central Asia since the mid-60's has been 'support whatever homicidal maniac is in charge as long as they're anti communist and give us a price break on oil if they have any.'

Suadi Arabia: keeping the House of Saud in power despite the Saud's extremist religious views and police state tactics that the Gestapo could take notes from.
Iraq: Keeping Saddam Hussien in power despite well-documented and well-known use of chemical weapons testing on ethnic Kurds from the 1980's onward
Iran: Financing the overthrow of an elected socialist government in order to put the Shaw in power, financing the Shaw's pretty brutal regime and even giving him an actual US Treasury printing press because gotta keep him happy
Afghanistan: Financing of the Mujahadeen to fight an insurrigent war against the Soviet occupation, looking the other way after the Soviets left which allowed the Taliban to rise to power from the Mujahadeen framework.
Pakistan: Aiding General Mushariff in a military coup, providing him with fund to continue turning Pakistan into a military police state so that there would be a second aggressor on China's south border. The US ...

No argument there; I merely hate seeing everyone else in the West sit back and piously reach for their towels as if Winston Churchill hadn't laid the groundwork for all this back in 1919.

It was then-Secretary Churchill who created the State of Iraq to make his Saudi puppets happy, after all; ignoring the hundreds of years of sectarian hatred between the north (Kurds), center (Shia) and south (Sunni), which the Ottoman Turks had been careful to keep separate during their tenure, and which the British consul in the area spent a lot of time briefing Churchill on before Winston redrew all the lines and said "We'll worry about it later." Well, here we are!

RoyFokker'sGhost: TheBigJerk:

Gah. Can't believe I brain-farted on that. I know how to spell Shah, really....

And I do get your point about similar countries in the region being able to pull themselves out of the mess they were put in by the exit of the British Empire and being used as pawns in the Cold War. Most of the ones that did, though either had no resources that the First World government cared about, or discovered the best thing to do was to not play the game (Jordan, Egypt under Sadat).

Personally, my view is to pull out all American troops in the region, redeploy as many of them as Israel would allow in that country, and say 'Okay, you guys figure all this out. No more support except for medicine and humanitarian supplies'. And get serious about getting the US off the petroleum teat; that's the biggest thing preventing us from pulling up our stakes in the region.

I'd love to see us move eliminate military aid to nearly all countries while maintaining or increasing humanitarian aid around the world. I think that would be a more constructive path for us and would, in the long run, lead to a more peaceful, secure world for the vast majority of the worlds' people.

Satanic_Hamster: fark India and China, did you guys read the entire article?

The Pentagon Wages a Propaganda War Against USA Today

In a strange story today, USA Today alleges that in trying to report on a propaganda program carried out by the Pentagon, the Department of Defense waged a separate propaganda program against USA Today reporters Tom Vanden Brook and Ray Locker:

For example, Internet domain registries show the website TomVandenBrook.com was created Jan. 7 - just days after Pentagon reporter Tom Vanden Brook first contacted Pentagon contractors involved in the program. Two weeks after his editor Ray Locker's byline appeared on a story, someone created a similar site, RayLocker.com, through the same company.

The fake sites and Twitter accounts claimed the two reporters were in cahoots with the Taliban among other things. The Pentagon denied it was involved. "I find it creepy and cowardly that somebody would hide behind my name and presumably make up other names in an attempt to undermine my credibility," Vanden Brook said. After doing a little sleuthing, Gawker's John Cook says he discovered the military contractor the Pentagon used to run the misinformation campaign. Why the Pentagon thought this type of thing would deter a reporter is beyond us. If anything, the Pentagon trying to use Twitter to discredit you is just about the most ideal grist for a reporter to use in stories for days, if not weeks.

My, that does seem retarded beyond words, doesn't it?

Like trying to scare a Sea Lion off by throwing fish at them.

The rising China-India tension is no doubt fed by the close in roads the Chinese have made becoming Pakistan's new BFF.

Interesting times.

UCFRoadWarrior: And the Globalist NutJobs rub themselves raw over these two nations

Look at him

Look at him and laugh!

Chinese foreign policy takes the long view, but they don't seem to grasp the concept that acting aggressive toward your neighbors in an attempt to discourage them from defending themselves has the opposite effect.

Somehow in searching for an image to post, I stumbled across the wikipedia page for the Dong People of China. The entire page is hilarious.

Link

"Many Dong rebellions took place during the Ming and Qing Dynasties, but none of them were successful in the long run."

"the Dong and Han Chinese peoples generally get along well today"

"Traditional Dong religion also makes use of many taboos, omens, and fetishes"

UCFRoadWarrior: Trapper439: UCFRoadWarrior: And the Globalist NutJobs rub themselves raw over these two nations.

[www.rentalplus.com.au image 300x252]

Nobody is lauding of these countries, you idiotic Fark IndependentTM cretin.

But by all means, you should keep rubbing yourself raw over strawmen and the failed Cheney administration. Your masturbation is the only thing you and your kind can offer humanity, so go ahead. Knock yourself out.

Gee...I guess you took time from your rat-infested call center job to tell me this?

What the fark are you talking about, you farking moron?

I live in a Western country that has a higher standard of living than the US, and which isn't toying with the idea of electing a morally bankrupt party that denies its fellow citizens healthcare and desperately wants to start a war with Iran.

Good luck with that, by the way. You have the word "Warrior" in your handle, so I'm assuming that just like Ted Nugent you've already signed up for the final, bloody assault on Tehran.

dababler: Good a high casualty war in the 2 most populous nations is exactly what this planet needs. I hope India bombs the shiat out of Chinese factories, and China bombs all the Indian call centers, if they come to a war.

Lets try that again.....

Riche: Big enough to get The Job done.

/And by "The Job" I mean nuking Shanghai and Beijing.

This article makes me wonder if India has purchased cruise missiles or drones or at least designed and built their own.

The socialist Indian government believed there was no way the socialist Chinese government would invade India. Hee hee. What a rude awakening.

UCFRoadWarrior: Gee...I guess you took time from your rat-infested call center job to tell me this?

Says the man posting from his Mom's basement!

Smoking GNU: China wants india.

That's overstating the case to the point of swallowing Indian propaganda, hook, line, and sinker. There are also parts of China that India wants, but both sides realize that a hot war would be national suicide. If China really "wanted" India, it could have intervened in the wars that led to the creation of Bangladesh: it was a prime opportunity to take down the Indian military while it was fighting on another front and India was not yet a nuclear power at that time.

Trapper439: UCFRoadWarrior: And the Globalist NutJobs rub themselves raw over these two nations.

[www.rentalplus.com.au image 300x252]

Nobody is lauding of these countries, you idiotic Fark IndependentTM cretin.

But by all means, you should keep rubbing yourself raw over strawmen and the failed Cheney administration. Your masturbation is the only thing you and your kind can offer humanity, so go ahead. Knock yourself out.

You're a might bit sensitive there, mate.

The collected whole: China and India saber-rattling (for what cause? to what end?); China's' communist paper proving to be a capitalist success: it all makes me think I may as well take up drinking.

UCFRoadWarrior: And the Globalist NutJobs rub themselves raw over these two nations...

One cannot feed 98% of their people, the other is afraid that 98% of their people will see something on the internet that accurately describes their government.

Yet they still can play Missle Yahtzee with each other. Great

And world "leaders" seem to view the arms race as a kind of sport. The average four year old has more sense that these people. Somebody needs to distribute copies of Dr. Suess' Butter Battle Book stat.