Way OT, but very amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...india-pakistan
Yes, in best Winston Churchill tradition, Gordon Brown shall pick up the
White Man's Burden and go to the former British colonies to explain to
the little brown-skinned people who live there the great and noble
concept of how the world should work... as seen from Whitehall.
I'm sure they will listen to this pure political manna from heaven on
their knees, as he and Britain obviously know best. :-)

Pat

On Dec 14, 4:57 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

I'm sure they will listen to this pure political manna from heaven on
their knees, as he and Britain obviously know best. :-)

If he were criticizing India for its lack of response to the violence
in Orissa, I would think that India _should_ get down on its knees and
follow our instructions.

Since he is instead there to show support for India over the terrorist
attack to which it has been subjected, it is Pakistan that should
kneel.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:

If he were criticizing India for its lack of response to the violence
in Orissa, I would think that India _should_ get down on its knees and
follow our instructions.

Since he is instead there to show support for India over the terrorist
attack to which it has been subjected, it is Pakistan that should
kneel.


I'm really keen on seeing two countries getting into a war with atomic
weapons on both sides over Kashmir; or as our DGWA&FTS friend Sadu from
Bombay said back around 1981: "Gentlemen! Have you ever _seen_ Kashmir?
It's a ****ing heap of mud! Give it to Pakistan... they deserve the
damned place."

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

I'm really keen on seeing two countries getting into a war with atomic
weapons on both sides over Kashmir; or as our DGWA&FTS friend Sadu
from Bombay said back around 1981: "Gentlemen! Have you ever _seen_
Kashmir? It's a ****ing heap of mud! Give it to Pakistan... they
deserve the damned place."

As a follow-up on that, what the hell does this mean?

If he were criticizing India for its lack of response to the violence
in Orissa, I would think that India _should_ get down on its knees and
follow our instructions.

Who is "our"?
Last time I checked, the US and Britain fought a war in 1776 and another
in 1812 to separate our democracy from Britain's monarchical system.
Mind you, Britain burned Washington City down in 1814, but who wants to
hold that against them?
I'm sure if we had incinerated London they would have been every bit as
forgiving to us as we were to them. :-D

Pat

Quadibloc wrote:
If he were criticizing India for its lack of response to the violence
in Orissa, I would think that India _should_ get down on its knees and
follow our instructions.

Since he is instead there to show support for India over the terrorist
attack to which it has been subjected, it is Pakistan that should
kneel.


You wouldn't mind getting millions of people killed in India or Pakistan
to prove your personal religious/philosophical/political conceits, would
you? As long as the fallout doesn't get to you, it's all like playing a
big game of game of chess, isn't it?.

Pat

On Dec 14, 8:05 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Give it to Pakistan... they deserve the
damned place."

Since the majority of Kashmir's people are Muslims, and they want to
be ruled by Pakistan instead of India - understandably, given the
constant threat of "communal violence" in that part of the world - I
support democracy rather than hegemony.

But the attacks in Bombay had nothing to do with any legitimate Muslim
grievances. No. The attackers attacked a hospital for women and
children. They attacked Americans and other Western businessmen, so as
to isolate India from the world economy, and drive it into poverty.

And. They. Attacked. JEWS!!

Not soldiers of the Israeli army, in India on joint maneuvers. However
evil and wicked that would still have been, it might have been
understood - after all, there is an ongoing military conflict in the
Middle East, and it might be argued that Israel is an intruder on Arab
land.

No; peaceful people, quietly leading ordinary lives, and practising
their religion.

So we will have to wipe out those Nazi scum, before the other 14 of
them do even worse damage.

John Savard

*From:* Pat Flannery
*Date:* Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:26:02 -0600

Pat Flannery wrote:

I'm sure if we had incinerated London they would have been every
bit as forgiving to us as we were to them. :-D

And the US could have done that then? London's too far from the coast to
bombard from the sea and there would be forts all the way up the Thames,
let alone the Home Fleet.

Still, it's not that long after WW2 and we're in the EU with Germany.

Surely it's the essence of modern war that you can be enemies one year and
allies the next.

*From:* Pat Flannery
*Date:* Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:47:47 -0600


You wouldn't mind getting millions of people killed in India or
Pakistan to prove your personal religious/philosophical/political
conceits, would you? As long as the fallout doesn't get to you,
it's all like playing a big game of game of chess, isn't it?.

That's human nature. Far away lives are always less important than those
of friends and neighbours.

On Dec 15, 12:26*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Last time I checked, the US and Britain fought a war in 1776 and another
in 1812 to separate our democracy from *Britain's monarchical system.

You mean, to separate your particular subset of democracy from
theirs

...said back around 1981: "Gentlemen! Have you ever _seen_ Kashmir?

Yes, several times in the early 70s.

It's a ****ing heap of mud!

Really? Perhaps now, but at the time it was one of the best places in
the world to have a pleasant and restful summer holiday. No longer, alas.

Jan