prototype
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 2,672
- Reaction score
- 0
do you know what the ratio 1:1.1 means?
i am not talking about vietnam
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
do you know what the ratio 1:1.1 means?
Neutral Sources -
When I was in uni, I went through many newspaper articles on 1962 war in NY Times and Washington Post on Microfilm and Microfiche - I would check the online archives which would give me just the beginning of the article and then instead of paying for it, I would find it on Microfilm or Microfiche in the university archives.
I also recommend a paper from Harvard by Garver or Garwer which pins the blames on misconceptions of both sides.
We both are well known businessmen in the world today. People would love to spoil our image. Let's keep the dooms day drums from every drumming.
More trade, more money, more cooperation, reduce trust deficit, Just bring it on China.
I have read various neutral sources - and barring a certain Mr. Maxwell - all western sources universally pin the blame on China for invading India. 1962 was a good lesson for India. Unless Nadal had lost to Federer in the beginning, he wouldn't have been kicking his @ss nowadays.
Neutral Sources -
When I was in uni, I went through many newspaper articles on 1962 war in NY Times and Washington Post on Microfilm and Microfiche - I would check the online archives which would give me just the beginning of the article and then instead of paying for it, I would find it on Microfilm or Microfiche in the university archives.
I also recommend a paper from Harvard by Garver or Garwer which pins the blames on misconceptions of both sides.
"I also recommend a paper from Harvard by Garver or Garwer which pins the blames on misconceptions of both sides"
all western sources universally pin the blame on China for invading India.
I went through many newspaper articles on 1962 war in NY Times and Washington Post on Microfilm and Microfiche
It was "out of the blue" only to Nehru and his loyal Indian followers. Everybody else knew what was coming.
The problem was really miscommunication. Nehru and Indians in general do not believe that Tibet is a part of China, and they think that Chinese people believe the same but maintain that it IS a part of China just to justify its occupation. It's kind of like how the world views China's claims in the South China Sea right now. Thus, he thought that Tibetan territory is negotiable("suuuuure, Tibet belongs to you. *wink wink*), and since India acquiesced to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, that they wouldn't mind sharing a piece of the pie.
That, however, is a fundamentally incorrect point of view, because the Chinese really, really DO believe that Tibet is a part of China. That is, what they're saying is not just lip service, but sincerely from the heart. Whether that belief is right or wrong is debatable, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that that's what they believe. Thus, when India began to encroaching into Tibet, it wasn't seen as a Germany and USSR dividing Poland, it was seen as an attenuated invasion.
With this misunderstanding between the two, it's easy to see why both sides thought they were betrayed. The Indians thought that by letting the Chinese occupy Tibet, they wouldn't mind giving a small strategic portion to India despite the necessary lip service. "How could they attack us for this little piece of land after we allowed them to invade the whole of Tibet!" The Chinese, on the other hand, believed that they were taking back territories which belonged to them in the first place and thought that the Indians concurred. "How could they encroach on our territory after agreeing that it's ours!"
It's easy to just blame the other side for the affair, but as usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. This really demonstrates how the two governments, the two nations, and the two peoples need to improve communication and understanding of each other's core interests.
Well let's just go through what's wrong here.
First
is a big departure from
Which is it?
Secondly
So instead of reading scholarly journals written years later with a more complete picture and declassified documents, you've chosen instead of read articles written by some newspaper's day editor during the Red scare in America?
American newspaper articles written concurrently from 2000 thousands miles away during a time of rabid anti-communism is NOT a neutral source!
That is actually a lot of money to be used. But if you stayed outside India, you will know the the perception of foreigners on ordinary people of India will not to be your liking.
It seem like the gap between the poor and rich is very large. BTW how large is the meddle income group? These people should be politically the most influencial people.
I can understand the emotion of Indians regarding the 1962 war, well hopefully both side can mend the ties.