Turkey Threatens to Freeze Relations with EU

it goes a bit too far, from my point of view ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

question has China´s communist party switched internationalism to great hanism (dont know how to coll it). is it official ?

 

wrong, India is very pro-Indian . i will call it democratic, and fast developing not Westernized

 

It is by far not westernized, but it is without any doubt pro US. How India's attitude towards the EU is, I don't know, maybe India does not know the EU exists.

 

wrong again, India has been always anti american state. read more about subject. one example : P-stan exists as long as it keeps India busy.

know very much believe me, especially England

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

 

You have no idea what you're talking about, litwin. India is very Westernized. They dress as we do in the West, they speak English, they are democratic, they have Western-style schools and universities, they are among the most tolerant people out there, and so on. Their film industry is headquarted in a place called Bollywood, for Heaven's sake. The British left their mark in that regard; indeed, the first Indian Prime Minister said he was "the last Englishman to govern India" to give you an idea. As I said, I've been there. I have close family friends who are among the Indian elite, people whose relatives campaigned prominently for independence from the empire.

The Indians are indeed irked by the fact that we've traditionally supplied weapons to Pakistan. This isn't a deal-breaker by any means, though. Now, you're right that the Indian elites don't care much for England -- the scars inflicted by the Raj are still evident. But England isn't the West in its entirety, and Indians are (obviously) smart enough to make that distinction.

Further, America has one of the largest expatriate Indian communities in the world (there are tons and tons of prominent Indian families and relatives of prominent Indian families in Chicago), and we have plenty of Indian students at our universities (as both teachers and students). We have governors who are Indians -- one is even a Sikh, I believe. And on and on.

I concede that the country's elite tend to have a (marginally) more pro-West stance than, say, an Indian peasant, but it's nothing horribly pronounced. The point is this, India and the West have very much in common -- lots of mutual links with expatriate families and students abroad, a vested interest in democratic values, and a quickly aligning worldview. Now that a sizable rift has appeared between the US and Pakistan, there's no reason India and America shouldn't be cooperating on most things.

 

The Indians hold Europe in high esteem, probably moreso than they do the Americans because of the whole Pakistani arms deal debacles (I'm only theorizing here, I've not ever asked).

This friend I've referenced knows perfect French (and has taught it to her sons) and wants to move to, of all the random places, Toulouse.

 

Romans rise and fall, Greeks did too, any many other civilizations , just like the Ottomans, and trust me when i say this, your western civilization will be turned into ashes and if the end of the world needs to come for it, so be it , as long as it brings your end, anything is fine by me .

 

Come on, youve had more than 80 years to come to grips with your insignificance. Deal with it.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. Do not cheat yourself with "they dress as we do in the West" and "they are drinking Coca-Cola" sort of trash. It has nothing to do with mentality, culture, religion and politics vision they have. Anyway, you can perfectly see US is supporting Pakistan, India's enemy, so it is very foolish to think, that they are pro-US. India is pro-India, obviously.

 

Slavic Russia is in demographic collapse. There are fewer than six million Russians east of Lake Baikal. There are 110 million Chinese immediately south of the border. Demographics is destiny. Slavic Russia doesn't have a future.
http://the-diplomat.com/2010/02/19/china’s-russian-invasion/

 

I'm not sure what you mean by internationalism. Imo the Chinese Communist Party abandoned communism in 1976. Deng Xiaoping led the Party in a new direction. But in doing so the Party had to find a new source of ideological legitimacy.

The CCP chose nationalism and grievance as its ideological substitute. Through indoctrination it created nationalistic fervor among the people. The current approach from my limited perspective is what I call a fusion of Confucianism and Leninism. Others call it the restoration of the Middle Kingdom.

 

Oh no, of course not. Naturally, a country's civilization has nothing to do with its mentality, culture, politics, or national vision -- rather, such a definition is based upon a complex algorithm which takes into account all sorts of seemingly irrelevant information (such as the number of bananas exported during fiscal year 1987, the amount of condoms sold per capita, the preferred radio stations of the national rugby team, and so on).




Indira Gandhi is long gone; a new age has dawned in India, and I suggest you acquaint yourself with it. Come back to me when you've actually spoken in-depth with an Indian or two, instead of spouting off senseless drivel.

 

Plymouth,...

In all honesty, I don't think KGB_Agent deserves the treatment you are giving'm.

 

Well, then he shouldn't make baseless, ill-informed comments.

 

Oh....Han slave seems to be angry =) Butthurt, huh?

You could say just:"Okay, all this crap about western-style closes was totally retard". Instead you preferred to wrote nonsense, which is based, at best, on you personal experience. Well, you see my avatar.

 

No, its You one who has no idea what you're talking about...what do you know about Bollywood? apart that it includes word wood? they speak English,some of them yes(like bin laden did, can we call him ), but whats about Bollywood? whats about Indian politic toward Christianity? and long time close ally relation with USSR and even Russia today?

if you want to talk about American Indies - start another threat, by the way, you know how Mahatma Gandhi called them?

 

What a crass little Russkie you are. I see what I wrote flew, straight and true as an arrow, right over your ushanka-covered head.

And personal experience dealing with Indians, yes. lol

 

The comparison between bin Laden speaking English and Anglican culture in India rings decidedly hollow and demonstrates that you're simply spouting contrived nonsense.

What about it? I could not possibly care less, as an atheist myself.

India isn't a Russian ally. Just because the Indian government doesn't necessarily treat Russia with the contempt that most other nations do doesn't make India a Russian friend and ally.

Do tell.

 

YOU are so american you want to use 2 seats at once, choose one P-stan or India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Soviet_Treaty_of_Friendship_and_Cooperation

"India's relation to the Soviet Union initially after the former's independence was ambivalent, guided by Nehru's decision to remain non-aligned, and his government's active part in the Commonwealth of Nations. However, in February 1954, the U.S. administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower announced the decision to provide arms to Pakistan, followed a month later by Pakistan joining the SEATO and subsequently the CENTO. These agreements assured Pakistan the supply of sophisticated military hardware and economic aid.[4]

The developing situation alarmed New Delhi, which had uncomfortable relations with Pakistan. Since Pakistan also bordered the Soviet Union, it also provided Moscow with the necessity as well as the opportunity to develop its relations with New Delhi. India’s status as a leader of the Non-aligned Movement would also allow the USSR to bolster Soviet policy in the Third World. India and the USSR therefore pursued similar policies based on common security threat born out of the US interests in Pakistan. It was in this context that India and Soviet Union exchanged military Attaches.[4] Although Indo-Soviet cooperation had begun, the investment of soviet-military aid to India only begun in the context of deteriorating Sino-Soviet and Sino-Indian relations. Following the 1962 Sino-Indian war, the Sino-Pakistani axis was also an impetus for growing cooperation between India and the Soviet Union.[4]"

 

No, I don't. Don't put words in my mouth or make assumptions. I do not support supporting Pakistan in any way, shape, or form.

Voila. Thank you for indisputably proving my point that you are approaching this discussion from a 50 year old, outdated, Cold Warrior perspective.

 

you dont but your country does
ok http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india\s-arms-import-doubles-in-five-years/388991/

INDIA’S ARMS SUPPLIERS
Russia 6458
UK 696
Israel 423
Poland 283
France 154
USA 147
Germany 93
Uzbekistan 90
Netherlands 35
Italy 20
Total 8399

​

u know what it means?

 

That's quickly changing. American popular opinion is 110% against Pakistan after the whole bin Laden raid/downed helicopter fiasco. And the politicians are taking notice... well, the ones on the right, anyway. If there's one thing the Republicans can get right on foreign policy, it's cutting off the Pakistanis.

That India buys more guns from Russia than America... obviously. So what?

 

no one in the white house ever cures about P-stan , you just use P-stan against India and 17 years against "Reds" , it calls global politic . every one knows it , except you .

 

I'm beginning to doubt if even you know what you're saying. Of course I know what geopolitics are. You just seemingly, for whatever reason, are loathe to hear that the US (along with the EU) and India can get along.

 

drop it, you need a second head for this ...sorry, but you lorn a lot today , dont you?