Pakistan and China keep making a fool of US while...

[Mark Fletcher]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:

Well, from the "tone" of your message, Jason, it seems like you think of other countries as puppies of the US who need to be controlled and urged into a direction more to our liking :roll:
This the same arrogance (which probably comes with the status of super power) that can be seen in US govt. foreign policies.

Yet why is it in this thread and
others the US is criticised for not taking a more agressive stance against Pakistan for "harbouring terrorists"?
Although it is not explicitly stated, I believe there are some on this thread that would like the US to take the side with India on decisions regarding Pakistan, yet this is not considered acting in an arrogant fashion.
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

[Mark Fletcher]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:
Some assorted comments:
Apparantly, US has interests in Pak and so it is helping Pak. US has absolutely no regards about what India's problems are with US approach towards Pak. US's sole concern is its own benefit. (Note: I'm not saying this is wrong. Just stating the facts.) So when some Americans say something like, "We can't attack Pak because then Indian cities will be ruined", my reply to them is, "BS".

And you really think, that in the hypothetical situation where the US staged an invasion of Pakistan with the intent of changing its leadership, that Pakistan would not use its nuclear deterrant?
The USA is out of range of Pakistans missiles, but there are other nations nearby with nuclear capability that could be hit by a stray missile. Which would kick off World War III quite easily.
For all its power, the USA knows that when it comes to dealing with other nations that possess nuclear capabilities, that it has to tread lightly, if not for its own protection, then for the protection of its allys.

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:

Yet why is it in this thread and
others the US is criticised for not taking a more agressive stance against Pakistan for "harbouring terrorists"?
Although it is not explicitly stated, I believe there are some on this thread that would like the US to take the side with India on decisions regarding Pakistan, yet this is not considered acting in an arrogant fashion.
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

1. Taking sides is not necessary. There are tons of countries that are neutral.
2. It is not about taking sides. It is about blatant hypocracy practiced by the US. One one hand, US says "either you are with us or against us" on the war on terror. On the other hand it helps Pakistan. On one hand it calls Iran, North Korea as rogue states or axis of evel, while on the other hand, it is friends with Pakistan. On one hand, it blocks other countries (such as Russia) for selling rocket boosters to India while it does nothing of note to stop china from given nuclear secrets to pak. What is that if not hypocracy???

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:

And you really think, that in the hypothetical situation where the US staged an invasion of Pakistan with the intent of changing its leadership, that Pakistan would not use its nuclear deterrant?

Staging an invasion is not the only solution. How about economic stactions to start with instead of giving a set of F51 (or whatever, I forgot the name) bombers to Pakistan or giving loads of USD that they in turn use to fuel terrorism against India?
If US can put sactions againts host of other countries for the same "crimes" why not apply them on Pak or China as well?
But no, there are "interests" to be considered. That's the hypocracy I am talking about.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
Yet why is it in this thread and
others the US is criticised for not taking a more agressive stance against Pakistan for "harbouring terrorists"?

If America does not support Pakistan then it cant harbour terrorists.
So actually US has to do nothing but simply remove his hand over Pakistan.

Although it is not explicitly stated, I believe there are some on this thread that would like the US to take the side with India on decisions regarding Pakistan.
India has 'n' times said 'no' to US to interfere in its internal matter. So I dont think India wants US to take its side.
Though yes, I surely want that US should not support a country that "harbours terrorist", at least not after becoming victim of it.
[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:

I am sorry, but I didn't understand what's wrong with my post. How can I avoid writing "you" when I am replying to you
Comon, Jason. You were not happy with the tone of the article that I refered to and now when I pointed out the tone of your message, you don't like it?
If that's not the case, then I am missing something. Can you please be kind enough and let me know the exact problem?

Actually, your message calls another user on the Ranch arrogant, or as mentioned in Paul's document, "less than perfect". While I have always been loathe to say anything when these types of comments are directed at me, I have come to realize over time that it is easier to moderate if I remain as consistent as possible. That way someone won't think I'm picking on them if I point out their posts but not someone else's.
There are tactful ways to say essentially the same thing. For example, you might have said:
"If the US believes that some countries need to be controlled and urged into a direction more to their liking, than that only highlights their arrogance in foreign policy."
This is addressing the issue, not the person who raised it. We are all probably guilty of not wording things as well as they could be at various time, but my advice to people (and what I try to do) is to really look at what they are trying to say whenever they type the word you. That word is often a sign that something might be phrased differently.
[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Ranga Sreenivasan]

Originally posted by Devesh H Rao:
By the way ranga i would like to know why do we care if we are an ally of US in the region it is anytime better to be known as "India" rather than "an americas ally".

Good point Devesh, but you've taken my point out of context!!
This is what I tried to convey:
"The US considers Pakistan to be an ally, when they should really be thinking of India as a natural ally". When they do that, their foreign policies would be made in such a way that our interests will not be affected.
Now that doesn't mean India is going to lose its identity. :roll:
All it means is that the support currently provided to Pakistan will stop... which would enable India to deal with its neighbours much more effectively.
The diplomatic and material support that Pakistan currently enjoys will be cut.
Now that being said, there is another angle to it. What would happen to a nation (which is trying to be taken over by the fundamentalists) when its pushed to a point of economic disaster? Well...I just shudder to think what that could lead to.
The best possible move by the US would be to deal with Pakistan in a way that doesn't cause a negative impact on India. That will not happen unless they think of India as their allies.

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Actually, your message calls another user on the Ranch arrogant, or as mentioned in Pauls' document, "less than perfect". While I have always been loathe to say anything when these types of comments are directed at me, I have come to realize over time that it is easier to moderate if I when remaining as consistent as possible. That way someone won't think I'm picking on them if I point out their posts but not someone else's.
There are tactful ways to say essentially the same thing. For example, you might have said:
"If the US believes that some countries need to be controlled and urged into a direction more to their liking, than that only highlights their arrogance in foreign policy."
This is addressing the issue, not the person who raised it. We are all probably guilty of not wording things as well as they could be at various time, but my advice to people (and what I try to do) is to really look at what they are trying to say whenever they type the word you. That word is often a sign that something might be phrased differently.

Ok, got your point. Will try to abide by it.
Question: I wanted to bring to your attention the typical attitude that was very evident in your post. That was my "point". Had I not said that then I had better not even posted it. Do you see what I am trying to convey?
I was not commenting on you. I was commenting on your statement. I did not say "you" were arrogant, I said, it seems that .... May be it is some subtlity of English in your sentence which I did not understand. What can I do if "your" statment conveys something to me and which I am only pointing out?
I was expecting that you would say something to the effect, "No, I do not mean that" or "Yes, that's exactly how it is and it should be".

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

If America does not support Pakistan then it cant harbour terrorists.
So actually US has to do nothing but simply remove his hand over Pakistan.

[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

The world staying out of Afghanistan sure worked didn't it? There are far worse elements in Pakistan than their current leader. So the strategy should be let total anarchy reign and whoever takes over will be nice to India and the US.
You also make the assumption we can actually control what they do now. If that is the case, why do we not have them scouring the border with Afghanistan cleaning up?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
So the strategy should be let total anarchy reign and whoever takes over will be nice to India and the US.

But can you wait till anarchy take place ??
What if by that time they do the damage what they could ??
If that is the case, why do we not have them scouring the border with Afghanistan cleaning up?
Reason could be at Pakistan western border, there are lot of refugee camps, where 1000s of Afghanis are taking shelter from the time of USSR attack. And removing refugees from the camp will be inhuman task.
But if I am wrong then I think these days Mr. Pervez is working under a high pressure... and no doubt he is intelligent. He knows(or told) how to keep international community satisfied.
Nuke scientist comes to national TV channel just to says that in transfer of technology to Iran/Libya, there is no hand of Mr. Pervez.

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

The world staying out of Afghanistan sure worked didn't it? There are far worse elements in Pakistan than their current leader. So the strategy should be let total anarchy reign and whoever takes over will be nice to India and the US.

Excellent point, Paul! IMHO, its better to keep a friendly eye on Pakistan than distancing from them and letting them fall into the hands of extremists and terrorists.
But unfortunately history has proved that this decades old American policy almost always backfires (Taliban, Iraq � two �live� examples). But that�s not even what Indians are worried about! We are worried about them shooting us down in our cities, schools, temples, churches and streets today, while pretending to be America�s ally � diverting American funds and ammunition to fuel anti-India activities than trying to curb the extremists, or improve their economy. Unfortunately, USA doesn�t look much worried about it anyway � or not until things get out of hand (and it will)!
Also there is a question of how far below the US administration will stoop to keep a �friendly relation� with potentially dangerous country � As of today, they are supporting a military dictator, ignoring all proven fact of nuclear proliferation to Libya, to North Korea, what next? That worries us Indians, but I guess its just our headache, not USA�s!
[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:

Excellent point, Paul! IMHO, its better to keep a friendly eye on Pakistan than distancing from them and letting them fall into the hands of extremists and terrorists.
But unfortunately history has proved that this decades old American policy almost always backfires (Taliban, Iraq � two �live� examples). But that�s not even what Indians are worried about! We are worried about them shooting us down in our cities, schools, temples, churches and streets today, while pretending to be America�s ally � diverting American funds and ammunition to fuel anti-India activities than trying to curb the extremists, or improve their economy. Unfortunately, USA doesn�t look much worried about it anyway � or not until things get out of hand (and it will)!
Also there is a question of how far below the US administration will stoop to keep a �friendly relation� with potentially dangerous country � As of today, they are supporting a military dictator, ignoring all proven fact of nuclear proliferation to Libya, to North Korea, what next? That worries us Indians, but I guess its just our headache, not USA�s!
[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of many of the arguements used here. The US should do something and the US should just let things go.
Your Taliban example isn't very good. We did excatly what prompted my response. We pulled out all support and let things go. Which is what was asked for us to do in Pakistan.
How will that solve the issue between Pakistan and India? What do you think the US can make Pakistan do? As far as ignoring all facts, how do you know what discussions have taken place between the US and Pakistan? What do you feel we can do to get other countries to do what India wants? Have the UN deal with it? Worked in Iraq right? Also working with North Korea too.
I agree with you on most of your points on what Pakistan does ref terrorism. But again, what can we do to stop them? Pakistan is not a puppet state of ours. We do not control who runs it any more than we control what they do. None of us know what diplomatic pressures are used to try to get them to crack down on the extremist groups within.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
That worries us Indians, but I guess its just our headache, not USA’s!

When statue of Budha was blown off in Afghanistan, at that time I said to my firend that US/India should capture Afghanistan. In the country, where governament can destroy its own country, that can destroy anything.
US did the same but after being victim of their destructive mentality.
It was India's headache till yesterday when all activities of ISI where limited to Kashmir or Delhi/Bombay, but kind of terrorist are now getting shelter they are not Dawood or some one else but they are extremist, fugitive from Afghanistan and other countries.
There target is not only India, there targets are any country that does not think the way they think.
Let us wait for our turn, when our home will start burning. Right now fire is 10 house away.
Paul you asked how would that solve the problem of India and Pakistan. From very first post I am trying to say that its not limited to India and Pakistan. Its threat to world.
What should US do ?? Doing nothing will be better than doing anything.
What happend to Afghanistan?? at least US can say that its not involved in creating mess in world.
And yes, its good question whether Pakistan is puppet of US or not ?
AW if one feels that its headache of India only then I have no issues.
Let us wait and watch.

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

Your Taliban example isn't very good. We did exactly what prompted my response. We pulled out all support and let things go. Which is what was asked for us to do in Pakistan.[QB]
Not exactly the same. India do not want Pakistan to degrade into a terrorist camp, and may be that might be the outcome if America completely stops helping them. Now having said that, in past American administration have never been too reluctant to 'completely withdraw help and support' to a region once their interest in the region is over. How can India be sure that this wouldn't happen with Pakistan at some stage?
I believe all the worries that India has is about American funding that Pakistan re-routes to Anti-India camps and about the arms/technology transfer. Ignoring the proven threat to America in this process (proliferation etc), Indians are getting a more than fair share of trouble for just being their neighbors. Hence, what�s being asked of America is stricter restrains on Pakistan and aid to improve their poverty and illiteracy (with some sort of monitoring on how the aid-money is being spent), instead of leaving it all up to them. I didn't think that�s too much to ask!

[QB]Have the UN deal with it? Worked in Iraq right? Also working with North Korea too.
This is a whole different topic, but IMHO, if America was to respect and support UN decisions and decide entirely, UN would have been much more successful place and this world, safer! Oh, about North Korea, things have always been 'working' with them, but let's face it - they are now Nuclear armed, which they were not before. Thanks to Pakistan and to American incompetence in keeping a lid on their ally.
I agree with you on most of your points on what Pakistan does ref terrorism. But again, what can we do to stop them? Pakistan is not a puppet state of ours. We do not control who runs it any more than we control what they do. None of us know what diplomatic pressures are used to try to get them to crack down on the extremist groups within.
Thanks. And I totally agree that Pakistan is not a puppet government either. Hence my point, the goodwill aid and arms sold to Pakistan, not necessary always go to its Afghan border or to capture Bin Laden. The same American aid might be protecting Bin Laden in Pakistan's so called 'north frontiers'.
More international pressure on them to stop proliferation, to bring in democracy, to wipe out religious extremists, to stop funding and training terrorists, more aid with control on where its being spend - some possible steps that will make an entire region with quarter of world population safe.
My toppence

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Actually, your message calls another user on the Ranch arrogant, or as mentioned in Paul's document, "less than perfect". While I have always been loathe to say anything when these types of comments are directed at me, I have come to realize over time that it is easier to moderate if I remain as consistent as possible. That way someone won't think I'm picking on them if I point out their posts but not someone else's.
What about if moderators stayed out of these kinds of discussions to begin with? It seems strange when a moderator gets into a debate with a non-moderator and then, in the middle of the discussion, starts referring to MD policies, closing down topics, etc. In general, Jason, I think you do an admirable job of moderating. I just don't understand why you can't abstain from the discussions that you're supposed to be moderating. You know that sooner or later there's going to be something said that can be construed as being personal. Staying out of the discussion would be simpler for you, and probably more ethical too...
There are tactful ways to say essentially the same thing. For example, you might have said:
"If the US believes that some countries need to be controlled and urged into a direction more to their liking, than that only highlights their arrogance in foreign policy."
This would have been simply awful and calls to mind Rumsfield's diplomatic speechings. I think TT was very clear and sincere in stating what he believed. Why should he color it with politspeak just to maintain the illusion that we are not "less than perfect." Perhaps we should come to the opposite conclusion? That in fact ALL OF US ARE "LESS THAN PERFECT" and that the whole reason we're here is to approach some higher level of development that is at least closer to perfection. Pretending that we're all not less than perfect seems like some kind of big lie. Jesus Christ was perfect. Am I? Is Map? Is Joe Pluta, for godsakes?!
This is addressing the issue, not the person who raised it.
Perhaps we need to realize that an idea is inseparable from its speaker? You can't criticize an idea without criticizing the person who holds it. No matter how hard you try. And if that's true, then how can you have meaningful debate without being personal?
[ February 18, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
[ February 18, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Alan Labout:
Perhaps we need to realize that an idea is inseparable from its speaker? You can't criticize an idea without criticizing the person who holds it.

Let's see:
1) "I think you need to rethink your ideas because they seem to me to be unclear and contradictory."
2) "You are a moron."
You are right. Absolutely no difference.

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Let's see:
1) "I think you need to rethink your ideas because they seem to me to be unclear and contradictory."
2) "You are a moron."
You are right. Absolutely no difference.

The point is that if two people exchange the first type of argument for long enough, they will eventually arrive at the second type.
And thanks for the sarcasm. Just further proof of how perfect I am.
Alan

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Alan Labout:
The point is that if two people exchange the first type of argument for long enough, they will eventually arrive at the second type.

It doesn't have to be that way. The easiest way to do that is to always keep in the back of your mind that you might just be wrong.

[Mapraputa Is]

Alan: What about if moderators stayed out of these kinds of discussions to begin with?
Good point. You are right, it's close to impossible to participate in a discussion and "moderate" it at the same time. But if you prohibit moderators from discussions, how can we have fun?
I saw a good idea on another site: they have an anonymous account called "Moderator", and nobody knows who is this guy. Maybe we should have something similar...

[Joe Pluta]

The point is that if two people exchange the first type of argument for long enough, they will eventually arrive at the second type.
Absolutely untrue, as was recently proven in this very forum. A number of VERY sensitive subjects (religion, caste, race) were debated between people from widely different backgrounds and cultures, and the conversation was perfectly civil. Heated at times, but civil.
It is my belief that there are two opposite poles in the art of discussion. At one pole there are people who respect others and can discuss nearly anything with complete civility. At the extreme opposite pole are folks who disrespect everybody and everything other than their own opinions and who can't comment on the weather without making jeering remarks about the other person.
In my opinion, the vast majority of people here in MD fall far more to the civil side of the spectrum, and just a very few are examples of "extreme uncivility". Unfortunately those few are very vocal, and their static tends to dominate the bandwidth of many conversations.
However, the thread India and You proves that anything can be discussed civilly. It is a matter of respect, and Paul's credo of "be nice" really boils down to "respect one another". If my arguments have integrity, then I can discuss them respectfully with those who disagree.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

it's close to impossible to participate in a discussion and "moderate" it at the same time
It's not that difficult if you simply make sure to apply the same rules to yourself as others. I believe Jason does a very good job of just that.
Joe

[Jason Menard]

AL: What about if moderators stayed out of these kinds of discussions to begin with?
How about if moderators stay out of all discussions in every forum? I've seen heated debate in just about every forum we have at one time or another. Or should we make the determination ahead of time that there is a likelihood that people may join a particular conversation who are incapable of rational and civil discussion, and therefore pre-emptively refrain from making any comments just in case we may need to moderate something?

AL: I just don't understand why you can't abstain from the discussions that you're supposed to be moderating.
I guess another equally suitable option would be for people who are unable to conduct civil debate to abstain from the discussion.
AL: Staying out of the discussion would be simpler for you, and probably more ethical too...
Ethical? Okay... I guess if the moderators were to refrain from participating in conversations on this site, aside from quickly becoming bored and probably leaving, we would have much more time on our hands and probably feel that we should be doing just a bit more moderating than we currently do.
AL: This would have been simply awful and calls to mind Rumsfield's diplomatic speechings.
Another word for it might be civility.
AL: Why should he color it with politspeak just to maintain the illusion that we are not "less than perfect." Perhaps we should come to the opposite conclusion? That in fact ALL OF US ARE "LESS THAN PERFECT" and that the whole reason we're here is to approach some higher level of development that is at least closer to perfection. Pretending that we're all not less than perfect seems like some kind of big lie. Jesus Christ was perfect. Am I? Is Map? Is Joe Pluta, for godsakes?!
If you would like to discuss Paul Wheaton's policies for his site, I would direct you to the JavaRanch forum. They are his policies, not mine, and not the other moderators. Whether or not we personally agree with them is immaterial. It is our job to enforce these policies as we interpret them.
AL: Perhaps we need to realize that an idea is inseparable from its speaker? You can't criticize an idea without criticizing the person who holds it. No matter how hard you try. And if that's true, then how can you have meaningful debate without being personal?
I think Tom already addressed this. Suffice it to say that I disagree with the above statements.
I have been participating in this forum, MD in particular, for over three years now, not always as a moderator. Map and Tom in particular have been participating in MD as well at least that long, as have others who are now moderators. And that's just MD, we haven't even started talking about the other forums yet. I don't think any of us intends on stopping participating in JavaRanch discussion forums simply because a) there are people who cannot realize when a moderator is moderating and when he/she is simply partaking in discussion, and b) there are some people who choose not to keep their debate within the established guidelines for one reason or another. I don't know about the other moderators, but I can tell you this one doesn't get paid enough for this gig to come here only to play traffic cop.

[Thomas Paul]

Jason, Joe, and Map - let's have a big group hug! {{{{{hug}}}}}

[Mapraputa Is]

Oooooh, hug! I certainly join the company.
But I am not sure Joe would agree to hug me!
P.S. You see how much I missed you Joe.

[Joe Pluta]

Sorry, folks, all my hugs are reserved...
Anthony Joseph Pluta was born 7:23AM on February 17th. Momma and baby are fine and healthy, and they come home from the hospital tomorrow. My guess is that you'll be seeing even less of me for a little while as we adjust.
You wouldn't see me at all tonight if I wasn't home trying to get the house ready. Amazing all the last minute things you need to do, even though you think you thought of everything... .
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

(By the way, if it wasn't for the fact that the baby gets dibs on all hugs for the foreseeable future, I'd be thrilled to hug you, Map. I may get upset with you, but you make me work harder for my opinion than anybody else on the Ranch. With you, nothing is a "gimme"; I can never get away with sloppy thinking, and to be challenged like that is a pretty cool gift.)
Joe

[Mani Ram]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Anthony Joseph Pluta was born 7:23AM on February 17th. Momma and baby are fine and healthy

Great News.
Congrats Joe

[Andres Gonzalez]

let's hijack this topic!
CONGRATULATIONS JOE

[Jim Yingst]

Congratulations, Joe! And family.

[ChanSan Mehbubani]

Congrats Mr Joe Pluta.

[Alan Labout]

Thanks, Joe, for rescuing this thread with the great news...

[Richard Hawkes]

Cool !!
When will we see Anthony at MD?

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
(By the way, if it wasn't for the fact that the baby gets dibs on all hugs for the foreseeable future, I'd be thrilled to hug you, Map. I may get upset with you, but you make me work harder for my opinion than anybody else on the Ranch. With you, nothing is a "gimme"; I can never get away with sloppy thinking, and to be challenged like that is a pretty cool gift.)
Joe

You can give a hug to lil antony from us all

[Varun Khanna]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

Anthony Joseph Pluta was born 7:23AM on February 17th. Momma and baby are fine and healthy, and they come home from the hospital tomorrow. My guess is that you'll be seeing even less of me for a little while as we adjust.
Joe

Congrates !!!
Party Time
[ February 19, 2004: Message edited by: Varun Khanna ]

[R K Singh]

congrates Joe ...
hope we will see pic of Jr. soon ..

[Paul Stevens]

Congrats Joe.

[Joe Pluta]

When will we see Anthony at MD?
As soon as I can figure out how to download from the camcorder. I hate hardware...
Joe

[Jason Menard]

Congrats Joe! That's awesome! Or as we used to say back home... wicked awesome!

[Terimaki Tojay]

Congratulations, Joe. And no thanks to you all for hijacking the thread
Finally, I have observed that some people are quick to post facts to support their arguments but when presented with facts against their arguments, they never reply
7) Proof by Dismissal
Whatever.
High road:
"So you concede the argument?"

[Thomas Paul]

Congratulations Joe! A new little one in the house is very cool. We'll make him an honorary deputy!