Hakikat ve Hikmet
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2015
- Messages
- 15,534
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
How many times you want the same country to get nuked?????? Isn't 2 enough?????
Why don't Japan fight Russia Japan war 2 and get back South Sakhalin and Kurils?
- Thread starter Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
- Start date
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
Yes...I am more Jim Jordan + Trey Gowdy combined. The Senate has a few voices I appreciate....but the House is where its really at....ppl can speak their minds lot more there...there isnt quite the same dull donor/status quo atmosphere like the senate.
Past that, I just want people to apply what Obama did to how it would be applied to Trump if he did the exact same thing (red lines in syria, pro-Russia Iran deal, caught on the hot mic with Russian PM talking about greater "flexibility" after the election to accomodate Russian interests, all clear for spying on political opponent, 36 million dollars of taxpayer money used to suppress information from the press w.r.t Iran deal violation of existing law, withdrawal of US troops from Northern Iraq to help Russia + Iran big time, nod and a wink to AG Lynch to get Hillary past the finish line without being saddled with bleachgate )....the list goes on and on.
All I want is exact same standards for all (its fine to hate on trump, IF you hate on obama for the exact same thing in the exact same way). If you give one a pass (and a big pat on the back...even soppy-eyed cringy over-adulation....simply because he's in the correct-think party with the right skin colour as bonus)...but don't for the other guy...not even a limited bit (past your natural bias/preference allows)....well I'm going to support the underdog wrecking ball that takes you down by default...since your ego gut is now distressingly spilling out past your claimed pant waist size...and it needs a hard regimen of exercise rather than continued typical lounging around doing the same ole thing and same ole diet that got you there.
The dumb bloated couch potato (esp legacy) media still dont get thats the far better way to go about "defeating" Trump. You don't fight an opponent on his natural proven strength (esp after you have figured out where it comes from). Hercules certainly didnt with Antaeus.
Instead of doing that (figuring out the opponents actual weakness and fighting there for the good of all in the end), they want to out-trump Trump in whatever easy short term emotional route comes their way....and its backfiring pretty badly as time goes on.
You have to first respect what your opponent will beat you in...and fight where he is weak. Hercules was a bulky strong guy...but his ego never was the commensurate size (hence why he could even beat some superior opponents like the Hydra..by thinking...it is quite the wit of the Greek story tellers that they choose such a tour de force to craftily illustrate the extent of this by an inherent underlying irony). There is a deep fiber to such stories (mind always matters in the end over bulk strength).... if only people truly understand and apply it (sigh!).
@VCheng @GeraltofRivia @OsmanAli98 @Desert Fox @James Jaevid @RabzonKhan @Vergennes
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,413
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Those are some bold predictions. I am sure we will talk about them at the right time. For now, I am just biding my time.
KAL-EL
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 7,311
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Okay, you have your beliefs and I have mine. We might agree on some things and disagree on maybe even more things, and that's just how it is.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Two completely disparate arguments here; one, that Trump ought to be judged relative to his position, and according to the positions that preceded him; two, that Trump ought to be fought using tactics that will defeat him, not tactics that attack him where he is strongest, in a vain attempt to wear him down.
Let us take these two in detail.
Whenever we have had arguments with Pakistani members about Pakistan's right to existence, and their perception - the perception of some of them - we always face the argument that India, as an entity, wishes to see the end of Pakistan, and that is why Pakistan must face India as an existential foe. In all seasons, at all times, according to that section, India has been hostile, and has never given Pakistan a chance.
For the thinking and knowledgeable Indian, this has its moments of pure astonishment.
On the one hand, there is the reality that past Indian governments have seldom been determined to extinguish Pakistan. That is not Indian policy. It never was, except to the extent that such sentiment has a resonance with the voter, according to the calculations of some politicians; to the outside world, and especially to the Pakistanis, it is difficult to distinguish big talk intended to take in the gullible electorate from the reality of death and destruction in Pakistani towns and cities and the countryside, death and destruction that is confidently attributed to Indian malevolence, and to Indian espionage agencies and sponsorship of terrorist activity hostile to Pakistan.
There is, however, the reality that there are segments of Indian society that have emerged from their own familiar social milieu into an unfamiliar one; where there is either the security of a government job, and the consequent freedom to vent themselves and their prejudices as much as they will; or there is an unexpected rush of revenue, and, facing this unexpected wealth, a universe of opportunities for spending that money, in far greater amounts than even the revenue generated so that much of the spending has to be repaid in the future, and a consequential hostility to anybody and everybody seen to be obstructing the onrush of jobs from the new economy, coupled with a credulous support of anybody and everybody seen to be promoting that onrush. Finally, there is the Indian abroad, who carries the baggage of the past, and allows it to weigh on his and her evaluations of the present situation in India, in Pakistan, and between India and Pakistan. We must not forget his or her counterpart, the Pakistani abroad, who carries the same burdens, in almost the same, exaggerated version. Both overseas versions possess the mores and mental positions that have become extinct 'back home', both have a far more conservative, less permissive, less inclusive attitude, that is necessitated by their isolation from their 'home' society and from their 'host' society; one can accept, with a broad smile, the existence of an eccentric element in each type that derives intellectual and moral sustenance through preaching a counter-narrative and excitedly planning their last word and gestures as they submit to being tied to the stake and burnt.
So what would one do in this situation? Compare this regime with the previous ones, detect chinks in their armour, especially displayed hostility by individuals and by sound-byte authors who are so easily quoted to prove the innate hostility of India as a society, however absurd that might seem to Indians, looking at India from inside?
Or should we work to assess each set of circumstances on its own merit, and avoid that deadly trap of blurring all the lines and assuming that there are no differences between what is going on today and what happened in the past? Detach the amoral power-seeking of the present set of politicians, identify the morbid vanity and stupendous ego that the leader possesses and attribute it to individual clinical conditions? Segregate the graceless manner in which the current leadership displays at every opportunity to be politically incorrect and perversely therefore becomes attractive to the bigot? Rebuild the expectations of that employed population that was stopped in its tracks, it thinks, by the corruption and inefficiency of the previous regime? and explain that the process of conversion to a growing economy and consequent enormous opportunities have to be struggled for, and cannot come about due to government fiat and seeming big gestures that mean nothing?
In terms of chess, do we adopt the King-side opening or the Queen-side?
In terms of the India-Pakistan relationship, do we want to see the relationship as an impermeable and frozen in time and place icy cover, or as one that shifts about, around a core area that does not change?
This long diversion was to make the point about Trump and his administration, and to put the performance of previous administrations into perspective, to read their doings into the historical record.
It makes sense to d.o that when we look at the parallel world of Indo-Pakistan relations. We take this regime on merit, and assess it on its own achievements and shortcomings, rather than putting them on a relative scale, and assessing them against their own performances relative to others. We also draw the lesson that fighting today's bigots on a one-to-one basis has its pitfalls. That we should be looking at the asymmetric nature of any political position, and address those genuine weaknesses, rather than march to the sound of cannon, and address the present party's strengths.
A separate answer , methinks.
Let us take these two in detail.
Whenever we have had arguments with Pakistani members about Pakistan's right to existence, and their perception - the perception of some of them - we always face the argument that India, as an entity, wishes to see the end of Pakistan, and that is why Pakistan must face India as an existential foe. In all seasons, at all times, according to that section, India has been hostile, and has never given Pakistan a chance.
For the thinking and knowledgeable Indian, this has its moments of pure astonishment.
On the one hand, there is the reality that past Indian governments have seldom been determined to extinguish Pakistan. That is not Indian policy. It never was, except to the extent that such sentiment has a resonance with the voter, according to the calculations of some politicians; to the outside world, and especially to the Pakistanis, it is difficult to distinguish big talk intended to take in the gullible electorate from the reality of death and destruction in Pakistani towns and cities and the countryside, death and destruction that is confidently attributed to Indian malevolence, and to Indian espionage agencies and sponsorship of terrorist activity hostile to Pakistan.
There is, however, the reality that there are segments of Indian society that have emerged from their own familiar social milieu into an unfamiliar one; where there is either the security of a government job, and the consequent freedom to vent themselves and their prejudices as much as they will; or there is an unexpected rush of revenue, and, facing this unexpected wealth, a universe of opportunities for spending that money, in far greater amounts than even the revenue generated so that much of the spending has to be repaid in the future, and a consequential hostility to anybody and everybody seen to be obstructing the onrush of jobs from the new economy, coupled with a credulous support of anybody and everybody seen to be promoting that onrush. Finally, there is the Indian abroad, who carries the baggage of the past, and allows it to weigh on his and her evaluations of the present situation in India, in Pakistan, and between India and Pakistan. We must not forget his or her counterpart, the Pakistani abroad, who carries the same burdens, in almost the same, exaggerated version. Both overseas versions possess the mores and mental positions that have become extinct 'back home', both have a far more conservative, less permissive, less inclusive attitude, that is necessitated by their isolation from their 'home' society and from their 'host' society; one can accept, with a broad smile, the existence of an eccentric element in each type that derives intellectual and moral sustenance through preaching a counter-narrative and excitedly planning their last word and gestures as they submit to being tied to the stake and burnt.
So what would one do in this situation? Compare this regime with the previous ones, detect chinks in their armour, especially displayed hostility by individuals and by sound-byte authors who are so easily quoted to prove the innate hostility of India as a society, however absurd that might seem to Indians, looking at India from inside?
Or should we work to assess each set of circumstances on its own merit, and avoid that deadly trap of blurring all the lines and assuming that there are no differences between what is going on today and what happened in the past? Detach the amoral power-seeking of the present set of politicians, identify the morbid vanity and stupendous ego that the leader possesses and attribute it to individual clinical conditions? Segregate the graceless manner in which the current leadership displays at every opportunity to be politically incorrect and perversely therefore becomes attractive to the bigot? Rebuild the expectations of that employed population that was stopped in its tracks, it thinks, by the corruption and inefficiency of the previous regime? and explain that the process of conversion to a growing economy and consequent enormous opportunities have to be struggled for, and cannot come about due to government fiat and seeming big gestures that mean nothing?
In terms of chess, do we adopt the King-side opening or the Queen-side?
In terms of the India-Pakistan relationship, do we want to see the relationship as an impermeable and frozen in time and place icy cover, or as one that shifts about, around a core area that does not change?
This long diversion was to make the point about Trump and his administration, and to put the performance of previous administrations into perspective, to read their doings into the historical record.
It makes sense to d.o that when we look at the parallel world of Indo-Pakistan relations. We take this regime on merit, and assess it on its own achievements and shortcomings, rather than putting them on a relative scale, and assessing them against their own performances relative to others. We also draw the lesson that fighting today's bigots on a one-to-one basis has its pitfalls. That we should be looking at the asymmetric nature of any political position, and address those genuine weaknesses, rather than march to the sound of cannon, and address the present party's strengths.
A separate answer , methinks.
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
I think the most Russia can give Japan to settle this matter is the Habomai islands, the smallest of the Kurils and are not inhabited. Even when Russia gave a small island and half of a larger island in the Amur to settle China Russia border dispute, Russia never gave any land that is inhabited. Deporting Russian civilians by force is not politically feasible.
Consider what happened at Falklands. Argentina quickly took the islands, but could not keep it from Britain counter attack. Sure, maybe Japan can take the islands by military action, but Russia would rather nuke the islands than give up the islands because that would be shame.
Consider what happened at Falklands. Argentina quickly took the islands, but could not keep it from Britain counter attack. Sure, maybe Japan can take the islands by military action, but Russia would rather nuke the islands than give up the islands because that would be shame.
Last edited:
GHALIB
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
- Messages
- 7,434
- Reaction score
- -72
- Country
- Location
why should japan jump in suicidal adventure ?
Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
I will have to read all of this in detail and get back to you later on it friend (esp since its bringing India, Pakistan into the larger context of it). Thanks in advance though for the long reply
Understand that my gripe in the end with the whole Trump thing is I want equivalent standards for all in the major arenas of debate. You have to hate other people just the same when they do the same thing as Trump that you hate. You have to give credit to him just the same, when you gave others credit for other things you liked with them. From that builds my (and others hopefully) underlying respect and credibility towards the arena-owners (and loyal patrons)....that they prove they are not biased echo chambers.
Without it, I have to bypass for better arenas I find elsewhere... so the truths and falsehoods can actually be determined.
That is really summary of my relationship with the MSM (and information streams more broadly) these days. Earlier I just (wrongly) assumed many things about them...I know better now....they are human like the rest of us in the end...and I feel everyone must take real cognisance of that.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
I will have to read all of this in detail and get back to you later on it friend (esp since its bringing India, Pakistan into the larger context of it). Thanks in advance though for the long reply
Understand that my gripe in the end with the whole Trump thing is I want equivalent standards for all in the major arenas of debate. You have to hate other people just the same when they do the same thing as Trump that you hate. You have to give credit to him just the same, when you gave others credit for other things you liked with them. From that builds my (and others hopefully) underlying respect and credibility towards the arena-owners (and loyal patrons)....that they prove they are not biased echo chambers.
Without it, I have to bypass for better arenas I find elsewhere... so the truths and falsehoods can actually be determined.
That is really summary of my relationship with the MSM (and information streams more broadly) these days. Earlier I just (wrongly) assumed many things about them...I know better now....they are human like the rest of us in the end...and I feel everyone must take real cognisance of that.
Of course, take your time. But certainly these discussions are more productive and useful than the troll-fests that break out from time to time, and from which I so sincerely wish we were to draw apart as much as possible.
Your insistence on equivalence is understood and appreciated, but sometimes it does not work. My long note explains why it can be a road-block; these dyadic relationships are not relevant, functional or useful.
For the mainstream media, your concern is quite correctly in place. How I wish you had read history. You would then no longer feel apologetic or defensive about the need to understand the underlying world-view beneath each story, it is to be hoped, as you would have been introduced to historiography and its uses in reading history. There must be an equivalent to historiography for journalism; I don't know what it is, but it is too logical a concept to be absent, so it is a question of looking for it, and, on finding it, identifying it correctly.
Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
OK my friend, I read it all...it was a good read. I have nothing much to add to it because there is lot of gem of truth in it past the superficial disagreement I may have with you on some topics.
I leave you with this lovely opening to a favourite of mine:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us, we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way
—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
And now I must pay homage (after having diverted it away so much) to the original topic (somewhat) by posting this most delightful compilation and (sublime Philip Glass) music of the natural scenery of Japan:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
