I’m quite certain no one has ever asked me that question before. It does illustrate that we’ve had a failure to communicate. I thought I’ve been making myself pretty clear in that I feel the US should not involve themselves so much in other countries affairs, and when they do, it’s usually to benefit powerful US business interests, and not really about “spreading democracy.” Maybe I could’ve said things better, or perhaps you’re rushing to judgement without first understanding what I was saying. Your hang-up on the Mango Deal is a case in point, since any condescension in that has obviously been directed toward Boosh’s (in)ability to negotiate deals. That’s why I provided a link.

“you are not very well informed about decisions by the Indian Parliament.”

Guilty as charged. Next time my wife and kids want to go to the park, I”ll stay home and study up on India’s Parliament. I’ll have a report for you the next time we meet.

“I do not have to accept that which I find objectionable.”

Right on! Although again, you might want to make sure you comprehend what’s being said before objecting to it. I wish the US would spend more time taking care of it’s own problems before meddling in the problems of other countries. Our foreign policy should be more about humanitarian aid throughout the world, rather than blowing things up and killing thousands. As far as stopping terrorists and dictators, I think the “killing them with kindness” approach would have great benefit to the US, and the world’s people.

I do not think these opinions represent “bigotry.”

It is very US amertican hangup to excuse Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal as a response to Indian investment in the field. That is yet to be proven. From all my knowledge to date, the timeline is not a tit for tat but simultaneous.

Also, after the disastrous skirmish with China in 1962 and in the wake of increasing animosity from Pakistan after Indian intervention in then East Pakistan but since Bangladesh, India sought actively to develop nuclear capability. If US Americans are troubled by that, that is hypocritical in the extreme, coming from not only the most heavily armed nuclear country but the only one guilty of unleashing nuclear horror on people – you know, human beings.

You do not have to like my caustic comments re the predominant US American mindset. I do not have to accept that which I find objectionable.

Your condescension however I could do without.

Yes, I know that India has had nuclear capabilities for a long time, and this was a major reason Bennie Bhutto’s dad developed Pakistan’s nuclear program in the early 1970s.

Considering I’ve spent a good deal of time in India and other SE Asian countries working directly with locals, not as a tourist, I don’t really need you to explain that “brown people” are smart and have a variety of opinions.

The mango deal was brought up to illustrate a point I had been making over and over again, which was ignored in your comment, that all this constant deal-making and tit-for-tat around the world may not be in America’s best interest, and may in fact be done solely to benefit powerful business interests which has been going on for years and years now. They always claim it’s to promote “democracy” around the world, and we all know this is not the case. The Mango Deal was worrisome on a number of fronts. More background here:

http://nuclearmangos.blogspot……angos.html

Now your point about the Indian Parliament killing the Mango Deal is interesting, and I’ll check that out when I get a moment.

Sorry if I’m not a scholar about SE Asian politics and history. Funny thing though…there’s almost always a great deal of disagreement even among scholars. They communicate their differences, offer proof to back-up claims, and get closer to some sort of semblance of “truth.” For the most part, they don’t tell people to “stop snivelling and learn some respect as well history – won’t harm you, may indeed come in handy.”

Hope this helps.

So what is your malfunction?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/huq

I’d feel pretty confident, that’s some solid history, with facts.

Ju know, good journalism, unlike Jo Klein, or others who fail Journ 101.

N while FDL was all OVER that, it WAS Greenwald who broke it, and ran it.

Jane, nice work . . Peter B even gave you kudo’s on his show today . . . . Air America 1240AM in Sacto, CA, 5pm or so.

But it’s hard to tell the lib’s from the liars, anymore . . . . FDL, methinks ya mighta missed the story within the story, about Mz. Bhutto. Course, ya woulda hadda done the homework . . . . .

Didja?

She had a run in Pakistan, and Musharef ran her out.

Then she came back, a threat to Mushie.

So what, he was gonna LET her live?

She was never a hero for the people, she was a one percenter in HER country, who lost her titles and tithings, when her father was kilt.

And as a one percenter, when she came back, she was a PURE threat to Mushit Boy, BoyKing’s Newest Poodle.

I’m sickened she’s dead. Sickened from the WAY she died. Sickened WHY she died.

But fer cryin out loud, for FDL to make fun of those who butcher her reality, is a bit too much.

Poor taste, Mz. Hamsher.

Course, if you had posted about Mz. Bhutto gender guts and leadership values for furthering the women’s gender cause, I woulda walked all over THAT, too, as Mz. Bhutto was a pure opportunist, land baron, and one percenter lookin to get revenge on the bastid who kilt her pa. And then, get her land back and her power base back, and all the while, crawling over the backs of the Pakistani People’s and taking all their money into her one percent coffers.

I can’t shed a tear for this dearly departed despot. Not ONE tear, not for ONE despot.

But I sure as shit won’t make fun of her death, either. No matter WHAT the pub’s do.

It’s a thin line, between love and hate. What a song THAT was. *G*

“Shit like this really turns me off about Obama.”

Did you read the AlterNet piece on Paul Krugman vs. Obama? Krugman is turned off by health care economics and Obama’s vocal tendency to bend over before he’s even won a single primary.

I think it was at http://tpmelectioncentral.com/…..mpaign.php

All of which fits in with the analyses: (1) Obama is attacking both Hillary and John Edwards FROM THE RIGHT; (2) Obama was a set-up by DLC and Clintonista insiders simply to bleed away progressive primary voters — who would not vote for Hillary — away from Edwards. ERGO: HRC wins.

There is something wrong with Obama’s campaign strategies.