From: "Rahul Mittal" To: Subject: Re: the truth about America.... Date: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:21 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it! --------------------------------------------------------------------- ==== ON A SIDE NOTE ==== Please check the "To:" address when you reply to any messages. Somehow everyone is replying to debate@indiapolicy.org twice, which is resulting in two messages being sent to me (and possibly everybody else as well). ==== END OF SIDE NOTE ==== > This is exactly what I would imply!! India offers just the same kind of opportunities > but many immigrants look for an easy way out! Also, I believe Mr. Rahul has drawn some > conclusions about me in his post which are rude and unsubstantiated. They are possibly > driven only by his own personal prejudices. > > Sincerely, > Vamsi M. To begin with, I apologize Mr. Vamsi, if you feel you have been offended. I have rather enjoyed having at least one person in this debate that does not share my opinions on all matters. That person is you, Mr. Vamsi (especially on the nuclear weapons issue). I take intense pleasure in my disagreements with people, because it helps me both consolidate my own viewpoints and also introduces me to ideas that I am not very familiar with. Some of my enthusiasm might indeed have been misdirected. I will attempt to refrain from doing so in the future. Further, Mr. Vamsi posted earlier, "Ya, all the brothuz are now climbing up the horse's ass and trying to preach to us about 'brotherhood'...". I merely point out that I have not come across a statement more "rude and unsubstantiated" in this debate than this particular one. On a related note, Mr. Vamsi mentions that he believes my views are "possibly driven by [my] own personal prejudices." I am not sure how anybody's posts could be driven by anything other than that person's own judgements, opinions and yes in some cases, prejudices. Similarly, Mr. Vamsi's posts seem to also have been driven largely by his own personal prejudices. I am prejudiced against the notion of building huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons for the purposes of offense, whereas he is prejudiced against the notion of not doing so. I do not see what is wrong by having views that are "possibly driven only by [my] own personal prejudices" especially when he is clearly allowed to have the same. In his response to Mr. Priyo's post, Mr. Vamsi mentioned "Mr. Priyo must realize that America has done nothing for him! His will to survive and his determination to do well have made all the difference!" From this, I see no fault in my conclusion that "[Mr. Vamsi] is the one who believes the entire reason for his current status of prosperity in the United States is because of his and only his hard work." If Mr. Vamsi does not believe this is so, I would appreciate it if he would be kind enough to inform us of his true opinion in this matter and what he really meant by his response to Mr. Priyo, although I do respect his privacy and his right to not share that opinion. Also, in an earlier response to Mr. Priyo, he mentioned, "we ARE those Jihadis!!". Hence again I see no error in concluding that Mr. Vamsi believes he is a Jihadi in my previous post. Finally, I asked on that post, "Why not include the other extreme nationalists on this debate? A certain Mr. Vamsi comes to mind." This was indeed a rash categorization and it came out quite unlike I had intended to. I would like to publically withdraw the term "extreme nationalists" from my question, and replace it with "participants". I also admit that I do not know Mr. Vamsi enough to be able to correctly categorize him as anything other than a participant in this debate. However, I have always considered people who advocate the development of military power (and especially nuclear weapons for offensive purposes) as extremists, because it has not been the view of the majority of the people I have discussed the issue with. And although Mr. Vamsi does not reside in India, I think he would like us to all agree that he is a nationalist, despite his refusal to believe that other Indians residing abroad can be the same. If this is not hypocrisy, I do not know what is. Perhaps Mr. Vamsi is a part of the Indian diplomatic entourage in the United States? If I am incorrect in concluding that Mr. Vamsi is a nationalist, please inform me accordingly. Mr. Vamsi wrote: > There are 500,000 babies dying each year due to the hare-brained American > foreign policies in Iraq and to this day (10 years later) the educated masses > in America cannot see past the hypocrisy of their own Government. So, I am > wondering if the uneducated masses in India are a greater threat to world's > liberty than the educated and almighty Americans with their power to silence > the world through use of military force?! This American power is precisely why I am against India aiming to be the worlds foremost military power. Power in the world needs to be balanced. It needs to be balanced to save India and maintain a strong India. A weak military India is in grave danger, and an overtly powerful India is a great danger to itself, let alone the rest of the world. The danger to itself lies in the potential for the same hypocrisy that one would accuse the American Government of. Balance is a good thing. Imbalance produces the situation Mr. Vamsi described above in Iraq. Ironically, the entire Iraqi situation was caused by yet another imbalance that took place over the decades until 1991 - the buildup of military power in Iraq leading to the invasion of Kuwait. Prior to that, I am not very familiar with what happened during the creation of Kuwait, although that will be my homework for this weekend. I do not pretend to know any perfect answers on how to solve the Iraqi situation, but this is something I do not understand. If 500,000 babies are dying each year in Iraq, why do the citizens of Iraq still praise and cheer for their leader Saddam Hussein (SH)? After all, isn't he the leader to brought them to this situation? Where is the logic in that support they sing and chant for him? Logically, shouldn't there be some sort of strong public sentiment against SH in Iraq, enough to eventually topple him from leadership? Or, even worse, do the people of Iraq care for their president so much that their own babies are of secondary importance? Perhaps my weakness is that I am trying to apply logic to international politics. Sincerely, Rahul Mittal -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org Rules, Procedures, Archives: http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------