Discussion:
CHURCHILL, India, America, and the Ends of an EMPIRE
(too old to reply)
DarkFire
2006-08-20 16:01:58 UTC
Permalink
I posted this on a different topic, but it seems like many in England,
Australia and even India, are unaware of the very significant and
interesting role of America in British Colonial India, and more
importantly its role in removing India from the British Colonies, and
even more importantly, the reasons for this.

Now, before one vilifies Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the America
President of the time, one must carefully understand the American
Independence war, and more importantly, the American Civil war, and
what role the European Empires played in them. Having understood this,
it is becomes clearer of what could motivate Franklin Delano Roosevelt
so many years later, to do what he did.

It is Interestingly there is much left unsaid, about the American
involvement in the dissolving of the European Empires... And the
removal of the Jewel of the Crown...

* * * * * * * * * * *
"Even though Roosevelt had advised Stalin not to even bring up the word
``India'' with Churchill, due to the Prime Minister's raw nerve on the
subject of India's independence, Roosevelt himself could not resist.
Throughout the entire war, Roosevelt had a special concern for India,
and was very upset about British treatment of the Indian people. He
believed strongly that India should be free from British colonial rule,
but he was afraid that, if he pushed this all the way with Churchill,
it would rupture their war-time relationship, which Roosevelt thought
was absolutely necessary to defeat Hitler's Third Reich. Many of
Roosevelt's true intentions to reorganize the world away from
colonialism were tempered by his concern to win the war first, at all
costs.

It pained Roosevelt to reject appeals from India's leader, Mohandas
Gandhi:

``I venture to think that the Allied declaration, that the Allies are
fighting to make the world safe for freedom of the individual and for
democracy sounds hollow, so long as India, and, for that matter, Africa
are exploited by Great Britain, and America has the Negro problem in
her own home. But in order to avoid all complications, in my proposal I
have confined myself only to India. If India becomes free, the rest
must follow, if it does not happen simultaneously.''

* * * * * * * * * * * *
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/FDRlw95.htm
http://www.mrbauld.com/victindia.html
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/weber/1942/02/britemp.htm
the Good Captain
2006-08-21 08:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DarkFire
It pained Roosevelt to reject appeals from India's leader, Mohandas
``I venture to think that the Allied declaration, that the Allies are
fighting to make the world safe for freedom of the individual and for
democracy sounds hollow, so long as India, and, for that matter, Africa
are exploited by Great Britain, and America has the Negro problem in
her own home. But in order to avoid all complications, in my proposal I
have confined myself only to India. If India becomes free, the rest
must follow, if it does not happen simultaneously.''
Theres no great revelation here. The US was seeking to supplant the
British Empire, probably from before the US Civil War. If Britain hadnt
smashed her economy on two wars of unprecedented magnitude, the 20th c.
may well have seen naval skirmishes (at least) between the US & UK.
This prospect had been considered by both countries from the 1890's. To
some extent, alls fair in great power politics, we played the game and
you won. Just dont insult us by pretending morality was behind it. The
US anhialated its subject peoples and annexed their land (the Red
Indians). You did the same thing with Mexico, but it looks like that
one is coming back to bite you in the arse. Just as Eastern Europe was
sold out to Stalin, the forced decolonisation of Africa began at least
50 years too early, leaving the continent still largely on its back
today.
harmony
2006-08-21 20:56:37 UTC
Permalink
u.s. foreign policy has been, and still is, about freedom and democracy.
british foreign policy has been about colonize, loot and plunder. usa just
wanted to end the atrociaous british colonializm. what's wrong with that?
it's only for brit good.
Post by the Good Captain
Post by DarkFire
It pained Roosevelt to reject appeals from India's leader, Mohandas
``I venture to think that the Allied declaration, that the Allies are
fighting to make the world safe for freedom of the individual and for
democracy sounds hollow, so long as India, and, for that matter, Africa
are exploited by Great Britain, and America has the Negro problem in
her own home. But in order to avoid all complications, in my proposal I
have confined myself only to India. If India becomes free, the rest
must follow, if it does not happen simultaneously.''
Theres no great revelation here. The US was seeking to supplant the
British Empire, probably from before the US Civil War. If Britain hadnt
smashed her economy on two wars of unprecedented magnitude, the 20th c.
may well have seen naval skirmishes (at least) between the US & UK.
This prospect had been considered by both countries from the 1890's. To
some extent, alls fair in great power politics, we played the game and
you won. Just dont insult us by pretending morality was behind it. The
US anhialated its subject peoples and annexed their land (the Red
Indians). You did the same thing with Mexico, but it looks like that
one is coming back to bite you in the arse. Just as Eastern Europe was
sold out to Stalin, the forced decolonisation of Africa began at least
50 years too early, leaving the continent still largely on its back
today.
the Good Captain
2006-08-21 21:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by harmony
u.s. foreign policy has been, and still is, about freedom and democracy.
british foreign policy has been about colonize, loot and plunder. usa just
wanted to end the atrociaous british colonializm. what's wrong with that?
it's only for brit good.
I dont think I've ever been so depressed reading a post as I am at that
effort.
harmony
2006-08-23 16:33:19 UTC
Permalink
well, i am very sorry, for causing depression is the last thing i want on my
conscience.
but would you really have britain continue on path of its colonialism?
usa follows its self-interests, no doubt, but largely through negotiations.
if you xclude iraq and vietnam, you will see its record is pretty good in
this imperfect world. look at its foreign aid program that has helped so
many countries. whoever heard of foreign aid before usa started the idea.
the world has to admit that the usa has been the no.1 civilizing influence
in the world, followed by, in my view, the hindus whom you guys sucked the
blood out of.
Post by the Good Captain
Post by harmony
u.s. foreign policy has been, and still is, about freedom and democracy.
british foreign policy has been about colonize, loot and plunder. usa just
wanted to end the atrociaous british colonializm. what's wrong with that?
it's only for brit good.
I dont think I've ever been so depressed reading a post as I am at that
effort.
are we on same page?
2006-08-22 19:40:41 UTC
Permalink
britain now has the same foreign policy as usa. usa must be doing something
right, no?
Post by harmony
u.s. foreign policy has been, and still is, about freedom and democracy.
british foreign policy has been about colonize, loot and plunder. usa just
wanted to end the atrociaous british colonializm. what's wrong with that?
it's only for brit good.
Post by the Good Captain
Post by DarkFire
It pained Roosevelt to reject appeals from India's leader, Mohandas
``I venture to think that the Allied declaration, that the Allies are
fighting to make the world safe for freedom of the individual and for
democracy sounds hollow, so long as India, and, for that matter, Africa
are exploited by Great Britain, and America has the Negro problem in
her own home. But in order to avoid all complications, in my proposal I
have confined myself only to India. If India becomes free, the rest
must follow, if it does not happen simultaneously.''
Theres no great revelation here. The US was seeking to supplant the
British Empire, probably from before the US Civil War. If Britain hadnt
smashed her economy on two wars of unprecedented magnitude, the 20th c.
may well have seen naval skirmishes (at least) between the US & UK.
This prospect had been considered by both countries from the 1890's. To
some extent, alls fair in great power politics, we played the game and
you won. Just dont insult us by pretending morality was behind it. The
US anhialated its subject peoples and annexed their land (the Red
Indians). You did the same thing with Mexico, but it looks like that
one is coming back to bite you in the arse. Just as Eastern Europe was
sold out to Stalin, the forced decolonisation of Africa began at least
50 years too early, leaving the continent still largely on its back
today.
the Good Captain
2006-08-23 11:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by are we on same page?
britain now has the same foreign policy as usa. usa must be doing something
right, no?
Its not identical, no, but Britain is no longer a serious military or
economic rival to the US, thats the point. The last time we acted
militarily without US support was in Suez, which should tell you
something. Its only now we are part of the EU that the US is being
forced to negotiate trade issues on anything like an equal footing,
instead of its usual practice of presenting fait accompli's. You really
should read the Peter Hitchens link I posted elsewhere in this thread.
Its not anti-Americanism.. if history had turned out more favourably to
us we'd behave very similarly no doubt. What I was originally objecting
to was the assumption of US moral superiority, which is absurd.
B***@isp.com
2006-08-24 06:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by harmony
u.s. foreign policy has been, and still is, about freedom and democracy.
Don't tell the Phillipinos and Puerto Ricans.
Post by harmony
british foreign policy has been about colonize, loot and plunder. usa just
wanted to end the atrociaous british colonializm. what's wrong with that?
it's only for brit good.
The British people don't need the coloureds to tell them what is good
for them. If the darkies don't like the British people, I suggest
they all
get out of Britain and get back to the 3rd world cesspits they fled
from.

It's "atrocious". When you learn how to spell and write the English
language
do try again. Now tell what white mans land *you* live in.

snip daft Dark Fire's overlong post. He's an injun who chooses to
live
in a white mans land rather than some Calcutta slum, just like the
injuns
in Britain.
DarkFire
2006-08-28 01:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
The British people don't need the coloureds to tell them what is good
for them. If the darkies don't like the British people, I suggest
they all
get out of Britain and get back to the 3rd world cesspits they fled
from.
--------------------------------------------
Dear Boedicia, Just out of pure curiosity, can you explain why the
great British and various assorted European Empires came to the "3rd
world cesspit" called India????
--------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
do try again. Now tell what white mans land *you* live in.
--------------------------------------------
Oh oh pray tell, *which* "White man's land" do *you* live in???!! :-))
--------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
snip daft Dark Fire's overlong post. He's an injun who chooses to
live
in a white mans land rather than some Calcutta slum, just like the
injuns
in Britain.
--------------------------------------------
You mean the Europeans in Calcutta?

And pray tell us all Boedicia, where in the world do *you* live in??? A
non-Red-man, but *pure* "White man" land???!! *rotfl*

And, have you ever wondered why you keep confusing between "Native Red
Injuns" and "Real Injuns"? Eh?

Kinda' funny, you know.... With yo' ol' "Injun" thing an' all.....
--------------------------------------------
B***@isp.com
2006-08-28 21:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by DarkFire
Post by B***@isp.com
The British people don't need the coloureds to tell them what is good
for them. If the darkies don't like the British people, I suggest
they all
get out of Britain and get back to the 3rd world cesspits they fled
from.
--------------------------------------------
Dear Boedicia, Just out of pure curiosity, can you explain why the
great British and various assorted European Empires came to the "3rd
world cesspit" called India????
The British first went to India as Tradesmen. There was no
military
conquest. The East India Trading Co. set up shop there and as in
Africa
the religious, the civil servants etc. followed. Every European
country
settled some part of the globe and it's a good thing they did or
the
inhabitants of those dark ladns would still be eating each other.
The
British attempted to stop many fo the barbaric customs in India,
Kali
strangling e.g. widows on pyres e.g. killing wives in
"accidental" fires e.g.
India was at war with itself until it became a British colony. We
can see from
the number of Indians who now live in Britain trhat since
Independence things
have worsened there, not improved.
Post by DarkFire
--------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
do try again. Now tell what white mans land *you* live in.
--------------------------------------------
Oh oh pray tell, *which* "White man's land" do *you* live in???!! :-))
I was born in Coventry, at the moment I live in Palm Springs,
California
Post by DarkFire
--------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
snip daft Dark Fire's overlong post. He's an injun who chooses to
live in a white mans land rather than some Calcutta slum, just like the
injuns in Britain.
--------------------------------------------
You mean the Europeans in Calcutta?
And pray tell us all Boedicia, where in the world do *you* live in??? A
non-Red-man, but *pure* "White man" land???!! *rotfl*
The U.S.A. was founded by white men, English white men and
Christians.
The so-called "red man" had No. America for 1000's of years and
never advanced
one iota. Never put pen to paper, never invented one single thing.
The so-called
American "Indian" are Asians i.e. immigrants.
Post by DarkFire
And, have you ever wondered why you keep confusing between "Native Red
Injuns" and "Real Injuns"? Eh?
Kinda' funny, you know.... With yo' ol' "Injun" thing an' all.....
You are anti-white and particularly anti-British, so it is
surprising to find you
living in a nation founded by white British. Why aren't you living
in Inja?
DarkFire
2006-08-29 04:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by DarkFire
Post by B***@isp.com
The British people don't need the coloureds to tell them what is good
for them. If the darkies don't like the British people, I suggest
they all
get out of Britain and get back to the 3rd world cesspits they fled
from.
Dear Boedicia, Just out of pure curiosity, can you explain why the
great British and various assorted European Empires came to the "3rd
world cesspit" called India????
The British first went to India as Tradesmen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the British came to trade with a "cesspit"?? So do British value raw
sewage a lot? How much does a pound of sewage sell in London these
days? Is there a black market for it over there?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
There was no
military
conquest. The East India Trading Co.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you smoke, but whatever it is, I want some of that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rebellion_of_1857

British empire against an Indian woman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Sikh_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Maratha_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
set up shop there and as in
Africa
the religious, the civil servants etc. followed. Every European
country
settled some part of the globe and it's a good thing they did or
the
inhabitants of those dark ladns would still be eating each other.
The
British attempted to stop many fo the barbaric customs in India,
Kali
strangling e.g. widows on pyres e.g. killing wives in
"accidental" fires e.g.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... And replaced it with your favourite pastime of burning witches and
slaughtering women and children in closed compunds?

http://witches.monstrous.com/witch_hunt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar_Massacre
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
India was at war with itself until it became a British colony.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not what those links say...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
We
can see from
the number of Indians who now live in Britain trhat since
Independence things
have worsened there, not improved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that's right, now people in India don't have the fond famines of
yester-year... I can see how they must miss those good old days, when
streets of India were flowing with famine and death....

(Ah, those nostalgic days of the European empires...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=909

Yes, the Indians of today, must certainly be yearning for the return of
the European empires:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948401.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by DarkFire
And pray tell us all Boedicia, where in the world do *you* live in??? A
non-Red-man, but *pure* "White man" land???!! *rotfl*
The U.S.A. was founded by white men, English white men and
Christians.
The so-called "red man" had No. America for 1000's of years and
never advanced
one iota. Never put pen to paper, never invented one single thing.
The so-called
American "Indian" are Asians i.e. immigrants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So according to British law, you are saying that if you don't invent
anything and I do, then your house and ass is all mine for the taking?

What have *you* invented lately? (On a side note, better start looking
for a good moving company...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
You are anti-white and particularly anti-British,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this revelation another side-effect of that stuff you smoke? I am
anti-lies and anti-deception... Nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
so it is
surprising to find you
living in a nation founded by white British. Why aren't you living
in Inja?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too many funny-speaking European pick-pockets over there... It is
almost becoming like a third world country...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Good Captain
2006-08-29 19:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by DarkFire
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by DarkFire
Post by B***@isp.com
The British people don't need the coloureds to tell them what is good
for them. If the darkies don't like the British people, I suggest
they all
get out of Britain and get back to the 3rd world cesspits they fled
from.
Dear Boedicia, Just out of pure curiosity, can you explain why the
great British and various assorted European Empires came to the "3rd
world cesspit" called India????
The British first went to India as Tradesmen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the British came to trade with a "cesspit"?? So do British value raw
sewage a lot? How much does a pound of sewage sell in London these
days? Is there a black market for it over there?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
There was no
military
conquest. The East India Trading Co.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you smoke, but whatever it is, I want some of that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rebellion_of_1857
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Sikh_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Maratha_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
set up shop there and as in
Africa
the religious, the civil servants etc. followed. Every European
country
settled some part of the globe and it's a good thing they did or
the
inhabitants of those dark ladns would still be eating each other.
The
British attempted to stop many fo the barbaric customs in India,
Kali
strangling e.g. widows on pyres e.g. killing wives in
"accidental" fires e.g.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... And replaced it with your favourite pastime of burning witches and
slaughtering women and children in closed compunds?
http://witches.monstrous.com/witch_hunt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar_Massacre
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
India was at war with itself until it became a British colony.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not what those links say...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
We
can see from
the number of Indians who now live in Britain trhat since
Independence things
have worsened there, not improved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that's right, now people in India don't have the fond famines of
yester-year... I can see how they must miss those good old days, when
streets of India were flowing with famine and death....
(Ah, those nostalgic days of the European empires...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=909
Yes, the Indians of today, must certainly be yearning for the return of
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948401.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by DarkFire
And pray tell us all Boedicia, where in the world do *you* live in??? A
non-Red-man, but *pure* "White man" land???!! *rotfl*
The U.S.A. was founded by white men, English white men and
Christians.
The so-called "red man" had No. America for 1000's of years and
never advanced
one iota. Never put pen to paper, never invented one single thing.
The so-called
American "Indian" are Asians i.e. immigrants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So according to British law, you are saying that if you don't invent
anything and I do, then your house and ass is all mine for the taking?
What have *you* invented lately? (On a side note, better start looking
for a good moving company...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
You are anti-white and particularly anti-British,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this revelation another side-effect of that stuff you smoke? I am
anti-lies and anti-deception... Nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by B***@isp.com
so it is
surprising to find you
living in a nation founded by white British. Why aren't you living
in Inja?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too many funny-speaking European pick-pockets over there... It is
almost becoming like a third world country...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're really nothing more than a bigot without an argument
DarkFire
2006-09-05 13:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Good Captain
Post by DarkFire
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by DarkFire
Post by B***@isp.com
The British people don't need the coloureds to tell them what is good
for them. If the darkies don't like the British people, I suggest
they all
get out of Britain and get back to the 3rd world cesspits they fled
from.
Dear Boedicia, Just out of pure curiosity, can you explain why the
great British and various assorted European Empires came to the "3rd
world cesspit" called India????
The British first went to India as Tradesmen.
So the British came to trade with a "cesspit"?? So do British value raw
sewage a lot? How much does a pound of sewage sell in London these
days? Is there a black market for it over there?
Post by B***@isp.com
There was no
military
conquest. The East India Trading Co.
I don't know what you smoke, but whatever it is, I want some of that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rebellion_of_1857
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Sikh_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Maratha_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey
Post by B***@isp.com
set up shop there and as in
Africa
the religious, the civil servants etc. followed. Every European
country
settled some part of the globe and it's a good thing they did or
the
inhabitants of those dark ladns would still be eating each other.
The
British attempted to stop many fo the barbaric customs in India,
Kali
strangling e.g. widows on pyres e.g. killing wives in
"accidental" fires e.g.
... And replaced it with your favourite pastime of burning witches and
slaughtering women and children in closed compunds?
http://witches.monstrous.com/witch_hunt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar_Massacre
Post by B***@isp.com
India was at war with itself until it became a British colony.
That's not what those links say...
Post by B***@isp.com
We
can see from
the number of Indians who now live in Britain trhat since
Independence things
have worsened there, not improved.
Yeah, that's right, now people in India don't have the fond famines of
yester-year... I can see how they must miss those good old days, when
streets of India were flowing with famine and death....
(Ah, those nostalgic days of the European empires...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=909
Yes, the Indians of today, must certainly be yearning for the return of
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948401.htm
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by DarkFire
And pray tell us all Boedicia, where in the world do *you* live in??? A
non-Red-man, but *pure* "White man" land???!! *rotfl*
The U.S.A. was founded by white men, English white men and
Christians.
The so-called "red man" had No. America for 1000's of years and
never advanced
one iota. Never put pen to paper, never invented one single thing.
The so-called
American "Indian" are Asians i.e. immigrants.
So according to British law, you are saying that if you don't invent
anything and I do, then your house and ass is all mine for the taking?
What have *you* invented lately? (On a side note, better start looking
for a good moving company...)
Post by B***@isp.com
You are anti-white and particularly anti-British,
Is this revelation another side-effect of that stuff you smoke? I am
anti-lies and anti-deception... Nothing more.
Post by B***@isp.com
so it is
surprising to find you
living in a nation founded by white British. Why aren't you living
in Inja?
Too many funny-speaking European pick-pockets over there... It is
almost becoming like a third world country...
You're really nothing more than a bigot without an argument
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last comment was to act as a mirror, for Boedicia's well documented
racism and hatred against Asians in general, and curry-food in
particular (I bet Boedicia is the master "mind" behind the missing
curry condiments in the Indian restaurants in London lately).

The previous comments however, are facts. But as for your own
response...

WOW! What an intelligent British Oxford response, to my "weak weak"
argument"!! Are you a product of a great British University like that
"Oxford" joint?

I only ask this because, I am a product of a lowly
Indian-village-tribal "school".... And yet amusingly enough, it is
*your* colleagues who find some strange difficulty in answering my
arguments in the War On Wits (WOW)...

I mean, why can not an English (Oxford perhaps) Gentleman, answer a
Indian village tribal-educated student, in a sophisticated European
intellectual debate???!! It doesn't make sense! Something *must* be
wrong here, is it not?

Are you disagreeing that the European empires of the 19th century were
nothing but parasitical maggots that infested and devoured India's
immense knowledge and wealth, all in order to feed the European
"industrial revolution"?? Or are you denying that after looting India
dry to overflowingly fill Europe's coffers with gold and
jewelry-trinkets looted from India (Kohinoor being the miniscule
example), people like Jon, Robert Henderson, Boedicia, etc and have the
temerity to call India a "3rd world country"?? Or do you also want to
belong to their little ungrateful race of despicable parasites, which
they claim to belong to?

Or if not, you or your fellow patriots could always answer my questions
to Boedicia... (Since apparently, he/she appears to lack the skills to
do so...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pace
2006-09-14 07:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by DarkFire
Post by the Good Captain
Post by DarkFire
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by DarkFire
Post by B***@isp.com
The British people don't need the coloureds to tell them what is good
for them. If the darkies don't like the British people, I suggest
they all
get out of Britain and get back to the 3rd world cesspits they fled
from.
Dear Boedicia, Just out of pure curiosity, can you explain why the
great British and various assorted European Empires came to the "3rd
world cesspit" called India????
The British first went to India as Tradesmen.
So the British came to trade with a "cesspit"?? So do British value raw
sewage a lot? How much does a pound of sewage sell in London these
days? Is there a black market for it over there?
Post by B***@isp.com
There was no
military
conquest. The East India Trading Co.
I don't know what you smoke, but whatever it is, I want some of that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rebellion_of_1857
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Sikh_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Maratha_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey
Post by B***@isp.com
set up shop there and as in
Africa
the religious, the civil servants etc. followed. Every European
country
settled some part of the globe and it's a good thing they did or
the
inhabitants of those dark ladns would still be eating each other.
The
British attempted to stop many fo the barbaric customs in India,
Kali
strangling e.g. widows on pyres e.g. killing wives in
"accidental" fires e.g.
... And replaced it with your favourite pastime of burning witches and
slaughtering women and children in closed compunds?
http://witches.monstrous.com/witch_hunt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar_Massacre
Post by B***@isp.com
India was at war with itself until it became a British colony.
That's not what those links say...
Post by B***@isp.com
We
can see from
the number of Indians who now live in Britain trhat since
Independence things
have worsened there, not improved.
Yeah, that's right, now people in India don't have the fond famines of
yester-year... I can see how they must miss those good old days, when
streets of India were flowing with famine and death....
(Ah, those nostalgic days of the European empires...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=909
Yes, the Indians of today, must certainly be yearning for the return of
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948401.htm
Post by B***@isp.com
Post by DarkFire
And pray tell us all Boedicia, where in the world do *you* live in??? A
non-Red-man, but *pure* "White man" land???!! *rotfl*
The U.S.A. was founded by white men, English white men and
Christians.
The so-called "red man" had No. America for 1000's of years and
never advanced
one iota. Never put pen to paper, never invented one single thing.
The so-called
American "Indian" are Asians i.e. immigrants.
So according to British law, you are saying that if you don't invent
anything and I do, then your house and ass is all mine for the taking?
What have *you* invented lately? (On a side note, better start looking
for a good moving company...)
Post by B***@isp.com
You are anti-white and particularly anti-British,
Is this revelation another side-effect of that stuff you smoke? I am
anti-lies and anti-deception... Nothing more.
Post by B***@isp.com
so it is
surprising to find you
living in a nation founded by white British. Why aren't you living
in Inja?
Too many funny-speaking European pick-pockets over there... It is
almost becoming like a third world country...
You're really nothing more than a bigot without an argument
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last comment was to act as a mirror, for Boedicia's well documented
racism and hatred against Asians in general, and curry-food in
particular (I bet Boedicia is the master "mind" behind the missing
curry condiments in the Indian restaurants in London lately).
The previous comments however, are facts. But as for your own
response...
WOW! What an intelligent British Oxford response, to my "weak weak"
argument"!! Are you a product of a great British University like that
"Oxford" joint?
I only ask this because, I am a product of a lowly
Indian-village-tribal "school".... And yet amusingly enough, it is
*your* colleagues who find some strange difficulty in answering my
arguments in the War On Wits (WOW)...
I mean, why can not an English (Oxford perhaps) Gentleman, answer a
Indian village tribal-educated student, in a sophisticated European
intellectual debate???!! It doesn't make sense! Something *must* be
wrong here, is it not?
Are you disagreeing that the European empires of the 19th century were
nothing but parasitical maggots that infested and devoured India's
immense knowledge and wealth, all in order to feed the European
"industrial revolution"?? Or are you denying that after looting India
dry to overflowingly fill Europe's coffers with gold and
jewelry-trinkets looted from India (Kohinoor being the miniscule
example), people like Jon, Robert Henderson, Boedicia, etc and have the
temerity to call India a "3rd world country"?? Or do you also want to
belong to their little ungrateful race of despicable parasites, which
they claim to belong to?
Or if not, you or your fellow patriots could always answer my questions
to Boedicia... (Since apparently, he/she appears to lack the skills to
do so...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn your history.The British went there as merchants,with the sole
purpose to exploit.Remember the East India Company?
scally
2006-08-29 20:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by harmony
u.s. foreign policy has been, and still is, about freedom and democracy.
british foreign policy has been about colonize, loot and plunder.
Well how else were we supposed to fill the British museum without
stealing from other countries. By the way we didn't have to colonize
another country to plunder their treasures, take Greece and the Elgin
Marbles for example.
B***@isp.com
2006-09-15 02:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by scally
Post by harmony
u.s. foreign policy has been, and still is, about freedom and democracy.
british foreign policy has been about colonize, loot and plunder.
Well how else were we supposed to fill the British museum without
stealing from other countries. By the way we didn't have to colonize
another country to plunder their treasures, take Greece and the Elgin
Marbles for example.
Every country in the world has objects that were taken from other
countries. Had they not been taken they would have fallen
into disrepair and would never have been seen and appreciated by
the world. The Elgin Marbles were bought and paid for by a private
party. Lord Elgins family donated them to The British Museum.

the Good Captain
2006-08-21 11:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DarkFire
I posted this on a different topic, but it seems like many in England,
Australia and even India, are unaware of the very significant and
interesting role of America in British Colonial India, and more
importantly its role in removing India from the British Colonies, and
even more importantly, the reasons for this.
This says it all...

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/08/the_great_war_b.html
Percival Baines
2006-08-23 12:53:18 UTC
Permalink
On 21 Aug 2006 04:50:20 -0700, "the Good Captain"
Post by the Good Captain
Post by DarkFire
I posted this on a different topic, but it seems like many in England,
Australia and even India, are unaware of the very significant and
interesting role of America in British Colonial India, and more
importantly its role in removing India from the British Colonies, and
even more importantly, the reasons for this.
This says it all...
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/08/the_great_war_b.html
Ummm. But wouldn't you say rather that, as in the British Empire and
so obviously in America today, 'the international folk' have always
used any contemporary 'super power' to further their own ends, and
that this is what is usually mistaken for the national aims of such
'powers'? - For them, if their activities result in the decline of
said empires, well, that is no skin off their international nose, is
it.
the Good Captain
2006-08-23 13:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Percival Baines
Post by the Good Captain
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/08/the_great_war_b.html
Ummm. But wouldn't you say rather that, as in the British Empire and
so obviously in America today, 'the international folk' have always
used any contemporary 'super power' to further their own ends, and
that this is what is usually mistaken for the national aims of such
'powers'? - For them, if their activities result in the decline of
said empires, well, that is no skin off their international nose, is it.
Thats exactly what Hitchens is saying, and what I've said three times
now... the US was (and is) following its national interests, absolutely
no problem with that. I was contesting 'Darkfires' suggestion that they
pursued anti-British (or pro Indian) policies for moral reasons. That
is the most unutterable bollocks. Its all about power politics. Just as
the mistaken (with hindsight) policy in Iraq was, of course, all about
politics too, not some great philanthropic impulse on behalf of
President Bush.
Percival Baines
2006-08-24 11:39:11 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Aug 2006 06:15:15 -0700, "the Good Captain"
Post by the Good Captain
Post by Percival Baines
Post by the Good Captain
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/08/the_great_war_b.html
Ummm. But wouldn't you say rather that, as in the British Empire and
so obviously in America today, 'the international folk' have always
used any contemporary 'super power' to further their own ends, and
that this is what is usually mistaken for the national aims of such
'powers'? - For them, if their activities result in the decline of
said empires, well, that is no skin off their international nose, is it.
Thats exactly what Hitchens is saying, and what I've said three times
now... the US was (and is) following its national interests, absolutely
no problem with that. I was contesting 'Darkfires' suggestion that they
pursued anti-British (or pro Indian) policies for moral reasons. That
is the most unutterable bollocks. Its all about power politics. Just as
the mistaken (with hindsight) policy in Iraq was, of course, all about
politics too, not some great philanthropic impulse on behalf of
President Bush.
Call it 'power politics' if you like, but in reality it is just the
rapacious pillage of other countries by bribery and under the guise of
'diplomacy' and 'law' - which are just hyena activities by stealth
rather than the franker old bums' rush and jaws as in nature.

I think you do the criminal Bush and his accomplices a rankly
underserved courtesy in according him 'President'. These are criminal
gangsters, and we should stop pretending that anything about them is
legitimate or worthy of any shred of respect. For all his sharp suits,
groomed pelt and media deference, 'Hyenadent' would be much more
appropriate. We should stop kidding around with these creatures and
treat them with the same brand of courtesy that they afford their
victims.

In other words, stuff'em.

Deep.

Six feet deep.
DarkFire
2006-08-28 01:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Good Captain
Post by Percival Baines
Post by the Good Captain
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/08/the_great_war_b.html
Ummm. But wouldn't you say rather that, as in the British Empire and
so obviously in America today, 'the international folk' have always
used any contemporary 'super power' to further their own ends, and
that this is what is usually mistaken for the national aims of such
'powers'? - For them, if their activities result in the decline of
said empires, well, that is no skin off their international nose, is it.
Thats exactly what Hitchens is saying, and what I've said three times
now... the US was (and is) following its national interests, absolutely
no problem with that. I was contesting 'Darkfires' suggestion that they
pursued anti-British (or pro Indian) policies for moral reasons. That
is the most unutterable bollocks. Its all about power politics.
------------------------------------------------------
I never denied that the US had it's own global ambitions; But the point
is, *whose* global ambitions were based on the tools of the values of
freedom and the "rights of the individual", that *you* Europeans go
about boasting to the world as the foundations of "your" society?? Eh?
Is it the European Imperial values, or American values of "freedom"???

Again, I admit that America had it's self interest as foremost, in
order to destroy the European Empires and create a new world order;
However, are you saying that the American world order of the
*attempted* spread of freedom and "democracy", is *worse* than that of
what Imperial England and Europe practised???

*You* Europeans *have* to admit that the American world order, is far
better than the Euroepan world order; After all, even *you* practice
and preach the American world order... Not the European one....

You see, whatever the self interest of America, the *founding* morals
which America preaches and to an extent practices, is far more superior
to anything Europe or England ever dreamed of... Am I correct? Or do
you claim Europe is/was morally superior to America? If you claim the
latter, then I would ask you to explain providing detail examples....
------------------------------------------------------
Post by the Good Captain
Just as
the mistaken (with hindsight) policy in Iraq was, of course, all about
politics too, not some great philanthropic impulse on behalf of
President Bush.
Arindam Banerjee
2006-08-29 06:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by DarkFire
I never denied that the US had it's own global ambitions; But the point
is, *whose* global ambitions were based on the tools of the values of
freedom and the "rights of the individual", that *you* Europeans go
about boasting to the world as the foundations of "your" society?? Eh?
Is it the European Imperial values, or American values of "freedom"???
I am not an European, but let us see what you say.
Post by DarkFire
Again, I admit that America had it's self interest as foremost, in
order to destroy the European Empires and create a new world order;
Quite. Which is why they wanted the Europeans to fight the Second
World War. The US media was really screaming for it throughout 1939.
The Americans wanted the self-destruction of the European world order.
Post by DarkFire
However, are you saying that the American world order of the
*attempted* spread of freedom and "democracy", is *worse* than that of
what Imperial England and Europe practised???
It *is* far worse, and I am saying this as an Indian. All the
Americans want is their own good, at the expense of everyone else
including the environment. All that they have spread is pollution and
bad taste, via their media and technology. It is for the superior
cultures in Asia and Europe to make the best usage of their
technologies, that they developed for their own gain.

The European presence in India (British and French, mainly) gave the
Indians much needed military strength, administration, law and order on
equality grounds, technology, university education, lack of civil wars
on the death of the ruler, lots of extra inputs like jute, tea,
potatoes, roads and rails, democracy, independent judiciary, etc. etc.
What the Americans do is corrupt the thirdworld leaders to get
contracts. They contribute nothing positive.

Yes, I know the Americans have paid good money to buy top quality
thirdworlders from graduate level with scholarships and jobs, and they
do have a sense of gratitude: as I see, and that is not bad, so long
as overall perspectives are not ignored. Let these people say, what
good they have done to India apart from sending remittances. And even
in this field, the Indians living in the Muslim middle east countries
have sent back more money, as they do not or rather can not plan to
live there.
Post by DarkFire
*You* Europeans *have* to admit that the American world order, is far
better than the Euroepan world order; After all, even *you* practice
and preach the American world order... Not the European one....
And what is the American world order? What we see in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Vietnam? Yes, after WW2 the US was very good to Japan and
Germany, but since the 1960s they have gone hugely backward.
Post by DarkFire
You see, whatever the self interest of America, the *founding* morals
which America preaches and to an extent practices, is far more superior
to anything Europe or England ever dreamed of... Am I correct?
No. America was founded on slavery and genocide. The descendants of
the convicts from England, and well settled in the colonies, wanted the
land from the native Americans, and had to break the treaties the
British had made, which made such robbery impossible. So, they had to
fight to throw out the British. After winning the war, the colonists
embarked upon wholesale expansion. Their presence in Iraq, comes from
this their historic attitude of grabbing whenever or wherever possible.

If you think that genocide and robbery and slavery are very moral, then
yes, they are probably the most moral nation that ever existed.

But they did have some good period after WW2 till 60s, and after the
60s they did try hard to foster racial equality in their own nation.
However, this latter aspect does not change matters so far as
non-Americans are concerned.
Post by DarkFire
Or do
you claim Europe is/was morally superior to America? If you claim the
latter, then I would ask you to explain providing detail examples....
The Europeans are certainly far more cultured and overll less racist
than the Americans. They have done a great deal of good in other parts
of the world, in terms of introducing new and beneficial aspects. They
have ideals, valour, a sense of fairness. They never nuked anyone, and
their fighting often had elements of honour - totally unlike the
fighting style of the Americans.

When the Europeans were racists, the Americans were no less racists -
in fact, they were far more racist. Swami Vivekananda got that
impression 100years ago, when he was not allowed to stay in the cheaper
hotels, due to US racism. Since he had to stay in the expensive
hotels, he was very short of funds. Racism in England was far less
than in US.
Post by DarkFire
------------------------------------------------------
Post by the Good Captain
Just as
the mistaken (with hindsight) policy in Iraq was, of course, all about
politics too, not some great philanthropic impulse on behalf of
President Bush.
harmony
2006-08-29 17:18:21 UTC
Permalink
nonsense.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by DarkFire
I never denied that the US had it's own global ambitions; But the point
is, *whose* global ambitions were based on the tools of the values of
freedom and the "rights of the individual", that *you* Europeans go
about boasting to the world as the foundations of "your" society?? Eh?
Is it the European Imperial values, or American values of "freedom"???
I am not an European, but let us see what you say.
Post by DarkFire
Again, I admit that America had it's self interest as foremost, in
order to destroy the European Empires and create a new world order;
Quite. Which is why they wanted the Europeans to fight the Second
World War. The US media was really screaming for it throughout 1939.
The Americans wanted the self-destruction of the European world order.
Post by DarkFire
However, are you saying that the American world order of the
*attempted* spread of freedom and "democracy", is *worse* than that of
what Imperial England and Europe practised???
It *is* far worse, and I am saying this as an Indian. All the
Americans want is their own good, at the expense of everyone else
including the environment. All that they have spread is pollution and
bad taste, via their media and technology. It is for the superior
cultures in Asia and Europe to make the best usage of their
technologies, that they developed for their own gain.
The European presence in India (British and French, mainly) gave the
Indians much needed military strength, administration, law and order on
equality grounds, technology, university education, lack of civil wars
on the death of the ruler, lots of extra inputs like jute, tea,
potatoes, roads and rails, democracy, independent judiciary, etc. etc.
What the Americans do is corrupt the thirdworld leaders to get
contracts. They contribute nothing positive.
Yes, I know the Americans have paid good money to buy top quality
thirdworlders from graduate level with scholarships and jobs, and they
do have a sense of gratitude: as I see, and that is not bad, so long
as overall perspectives are not ignored. Let these people say, what
good they have done to India apart from sending remittances. And even
in this field, the Indians living in the Muslim middle east countries
have sent back more money, as they do not or rather can not plan to
live there.
Post by DarkFire
*You* Europeans *have* to admit that the American world order, is far
better than the Euroepan world order; After all, even *you* practice
and preach the American world order... Not the European one....
And what is the American world order? What we see in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Vietnam? Yes, after WW2 the US was very good to Japan and
Germany, but since the 1960s they have gone hugely backward.
Post by DarkFire
You see, whatever the self interest of America, the *founding* morals
which America preaches and to an extent practices, is far more superior
to anything Europe or England ever dreamed of... Am I correct?
No. America was founded on slavery and genocide. The descendants of
the convicts from England, and well settled in the colonies, wanted the
land from the native Americans, and had to break the treaties the
British had made, which made such robbery impossible. So, they had to
fight to throw out the British. After winning the war, the colonists
embarked upon wholesale expansion. Their presence in Iraq, comes from
this their historic attitude of grabbing whenever or wherever possible.
If you think that genocide and robbery and slavery are very moral, then
yes, they are probably the most moral nation that ever existed.
But they did have some good period after WW2 till 60s, and after the
60s they did try hard to foster racial equality in their own nation.
However, this latter aspect does not change matters so far as
non-Americans are concerned.
Post by DarkFire
Or do
you claim Europe is/was morally superior to America? If you claim the
latter, then I would ask you to explain providing detail examples....
The Europeans are certainly far more cultured and overll less racist
than the Americans. They have done a great deal of good in other parts
of the world, in terms of introducing new and beneficial aspects. They
have ideals, valour, a sense of fairness. They never nuked anyone, and
their fighting often had elements of honour - totally unlike the
fighting style of the Americans.
When the Europeans were racists, the Americans were no less racists -
in fact, they were far more racist. Swami Vivekananda got that
impression 100years ago, when he was not allowed to stay in the cheaper
hotels, due to US racism. Since he had to stay in the expensive
hotels, he was very short of funds. Racism in England was far less
than in US.
Post by DarkFire
------------------------------------------------------
Post by the Good Captain
Just as
the mistaken (with hindsight) policy in Iraq was, of course, all about
politics too, not some great philanthropic impulse on behalf of
President Bush.
are we on same page?
2006-08-29 22:51:56 UTC
Permalink
coming from the uranium-contaminated glowing sands of australia.
Post by harmony
nonsense.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by DarkFire
I never denied that the US had it's own global ambitions; But the point
is, *whose* global ambitions were based on the tools of the values of
freedom and the "rights of the individual", that *you* Europeans go
about boasting to the world as the foundations of "your" society?? Eh?
Is it the European Imperial values, or American values of "freedom"???
I am not an European, but let us see what you say.
Post by DarkFire
Again, I admit that America had it's self interest as foremost, in
order to destroy the European Empires and create a new world order;
Quite. Which is why they wanted the Europeans to fight the Second
World War. The US media was really screaming for it throughout 1939.
The Americans wanted the self-destruction of the European world order.
Post by DarkFire
However, are you saying that the American world order of the
*attempted* spread of freedom and "democracy", is *worse* than that of
what Imperial England and Europe practised???
It *is* far worse, and I am saying this as an Indian. All the
Americans want is their own good, at the expense of everyone else
including the environment. All that they have spread is pollution and
bad taste, via their media and technology. It is for the superior
cultures in Asia and Europe to make the best usage of their
technologies, that they developed for their own gain.
The European presence in India (British and French, mainly) gave the
Indians much needed military strength, administration, law and order on
equality grounds, technology, university education, lack of civil wars
on the death of the ruler, lots of extra inputs like jute, tea,
potatoes, roads and rails, democracy, independent judiciary, etc. etc.
What the Americans do is corrupt the thirdworld leaders to get
contracts. They contribute nothing positive.
Yes, I know the Americans have paid good money to buy top quality
thirdworlders from graduate level with scholarships and jobs, and they
do have a sense of gratitude: as I see, and that is not bad, so long
as overall perspectives are not ignored. Let these people say, what
good they have done to India apart from sending remittances. And even
in this field, the Indians living in the Muslim middle east countries
have sent back more money, as they do not or rather can not plan to
live there.
Post by DarkFire
*You* Europeans *have* to admit that the American world order, is far
better than the Euroepan world order; After all, even *you* practice
and preach the American world order... Not the European one....
And what is the American world order? What we see in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Vietnam? Yes, after WW2 the US was very good to Japan and
Germany, but since the 1960s they have gone hugely backward.
Post by DarkFire
You see, whatever the self interest of America, the *founding* morals
which America preaches and to an extent practices, is far more superior
to anything Europe or England ever dreamed of... Am I correct?
No. America was founded on slavery and genocide. The descendants of
the convicts from England, and well settled in the colonies, wanted the
land from the native Americans, and had to break the treaties the
British had made, which made such robbery impossible. So, they had to
fight to throw out the British. After winning the war, the colonists
embarked upon wholesale expansion. Their presence in Iraq, comes from
this their historic attitude of grabbing whenever or wherever possible.
If you think that genocide and robbery and slavery are very moral, then
yes, they are probably the most moral nation that ever existed.
But they did have some good period after WW2 till 60s, and after the
60s they did try hard to foster racial equality in their own nation.
However, this latter aspect does not change matters so far as
non-Americans are concerned.
Post by DarkFire
Or do
you claim Europe is/was morally superior to America? If you claim the
latter, then I would ask you to explain providing detail examples....
The Europeans are certainly far more cultured and overll less racist
than the Americans. They have done a great deal of good in other parts
of the world, in terms of introducing new and beneficial aspects. They
have ideals, valour, a sense of fairness. They never nuked anyone, and
their fighting often had elements of honour - totally unlike the
fighting style of the Americans.
When the Europeans were racists, the Americans were no less racists -
in fact, they were far more racist. Swami Vivekananda got that
impression 100years ago, when he was not allowed to stay in the cheaper
hotels, due to US racism. Since he had to stay in the expensive
hotels, he was very short of funds. Racism in England was far less
than in US.
Post by DarkFire
------------------------------------------------------
Post by the Good Captain
Just as
the mistaken (with hindsight) policy in Iraq was, of course, all about
politics too, not some great philanthropic impulse on behalf of
President Bush.
the Good Captain
2006-08-29 07:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by DarkFire
I never denied that the US had it's own global ambitions; But the point
is, *whose* global ambitions were based on the tools of the values of
freedom and the "rights of the individual", that *you* Europeans go
about boasting to the world as the foundations of "your" society?? Eh?
Is it the European Imperial values, or American values of "freedom"???
I would refer you to the Peter Hitchens article I posted and Mr
Banerjee's excellent post in response to your 'argument'. It is
completely proportionate to state, as he does, that the US is a nation
founded on slavery and genocide. It can be argued that your empire was
the lands of the Red Indians. Their lands and nations are all but gone,
whereas India is a burgeoning superpower.
Post by DarkFire
Again, I admit that America had it's self interest as foremost, in
order to destroy the European Empires and create a new world order;
However, are you saying that the American world order of the
*attempted* spread of freedom and "democracy", is *worse* than that of
what Imperial England and Europe practised???
Is the Middle East better today? Africa, Latin America... shall we talk
about your satellite states in Central/South America, Nicaragua, El
Salvador? Chile?
Post by DarkFire
*You* Europeans *have* to admit that the American world order, is far
better than the Euroepan world order; After all, even *you* practice
and preach the American world order... Not the European one....
You see, whatever the self interest of America, the *founding* morals
which America preaches and to an extent practices, is far more superior
to anything Europe or England ever dreamed of... Am I correct? Or do
you claim Europe is/was morally superior to America? If you claim the
latter, then I would ask you to explain providing detail examples....
Well, lets see, Britain abolished slavery and was interdicting Yankee
slave ships on the high seas while you were still selling negros like
cattle. You annexed California and New Mexico from Mexico, broke treaty
after treaty with the Sioux, the Cheyanne et al, every time you wanted
to run a railroad over their land or found some mineral resource on it.
When they fought back you massacred their women and children. Then lets
bring it up to date and take a look at Nicaragua and El Salvador in the
80s. You funded a rampage by fascist death squads to try make the
region safe for US business and the handful of ultra rich local
families that ran the places. The list goes on and on, but I frankly
havent got the time or the inclination. You were given you an easy get
out and I'm amazed you chose to come back on this. You are confusing
the goals the US set for the 'rights' of the White Anglo Saxon
Protestant settlers in the 13 colonies at the time of the revolution
(at least for those that supported it) with the way the US has treated
everyone else that gets in its way. Dont embarrass yourself further by
coming back with a list of what you see as British 'crimes' because its
completely beside the point, I have never argued that Britain is
morally superior per se, my argument is that the US was a great power
like any other and came to pre-eminence through taking its
opportunities...
0***@my-deja.com
2006-08-28 21:32:16 UTC
Permalink
I hope Indians read the fol. and treat Churchill with contempt. He is
just a racist colonialist.

DarkFire wrote:
...
Post by DarkFire
* * * * * * * * * * *
"Even though Roosevelt had advised Stalin not to even bring up the word
``India'' with Churchill, due to the Prime Minister's raw nerve on the
subject of India's independence, Roosevelt himself could not resist.
Throughout the entire war, Roosevelt had a special concern for India,
and was very upset about British treatment of the Indian people. He
believed strongly that India should be free from British colonial rule,
but he was afraid that, if he pushed this all the way with Churchill,
it would rupture their war-time relationship, which Roosevelt thought
was absolutely necessary to defeat Hitler's Third Reich. Many of
Roosevelt's true intentions to reorganize the world away from
colonialism were tempered by his concern to win the war first, at all
costs.
It pained Roosevelt to reject appeals from India's leader, Mohandas
``I venture to think that the Allied declaration, that the Allies are
fighting to make the world safe for freedom of the individual and for
democracy sounds hollow, so long as India, and, for that matter, Africa
are exploited by Great Britain, and America has the Negro problem in
her own home. But in order to avoid all complications, in my proposal I
have confined myself only to India. If India becomes free, the rest
must follow, if it does not happen simultaneously.''
* * * * * * * * * * * *
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/FDRlw95.htm
http://www.mrbauld.com/victindia.html
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/weber/1942/02/britemp.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...