Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "ThePrint"
channel.
-
You must also take into account the changing nature of who is considered "white" or "acceptable". In the 1800's, Irish were discriminated against very heavily. After them, the Italians were discriminated against.
In the South, Catholics and Jews were lynched, too.
Intolerance goes back to the colonial era.
In 1600's Massachusetts, the Puritans made being Catholic or Quaker a capital offense, and executed them.
America has a long history of intolerance.
However, we also have a long history of acceptance and tolerance, too.
Neither wholly define America.
In fact, it is the mixing of these two contradictions that make America what it is.
We have always been more at war with ourselves than with other countries.
But, through it all, we progress. We become more tolerant, and more inclusive.
It is this progress, this willingness to change, that is our best attribute.
26
-
23
-
19
-
17
-
13
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No long ago, I would have agreed that any war in the region would result in huge pressure to disengage.
Now, I am not so sure.
The world has come to the conclusion that China is very dangerous, and that its seizure of the SCS
cannot be allowed. I think world leading nations, like US, UK, Japan, and France think that China's wings must be clipped.
IF a war broke out between India and China, those nations would likely back India. They might even join as allies, since a China victory over India would be disastrous for them.
They would likely let India do the fighting, but they would assist greatly with supplies, armaments, missiles, planes, and most of all -- reconnaissance and intelligence. India would be fully aware of the disposition of all of China's assets.
India own satellites would be augmented by info from US, Japan, UK, France, etc.
US navy would protect India's Indian Ocean front. China would be thwarted from mounting any effective operations there.
Its bases in Pakistan, Iran, and Djibouti would be neutralized.
India would be able to focus on the Himalayan front, where I think India holds major, even decisive, advantages.
1. I think India's training is superior.
2. India has troops trained for high mountain combat. I don't think China has done that very much.
3. China's PLA is riddled with corruption, IMO. Although China has bought a lot of new weapons ---
I doubt it has trained with them, or maintained them well. Most importantly, I doubt China has analyzed and updated its doctrine to accommodate the new weapons. Why? Simple, that takes a huge amount of war gaming, training, and analysis. I doubt China has done that. Such war gaming and training cannot be hidden.
4. In the event of any India/China war, the Indian Ocean would be kept open for maritime trade for India and the world.
MEANWHILE -- the South & East China Seas would be shut down. China's maritime trade would cease to exist.
China's economy would be severely hit, while India's economy would function nicely.
2
-
You have a traditional Indian attitude. It is stupid, but it is traditional.
Alliances can be of great use. Countries have used alliances since ancient times.
Germany & Japan were defeated using alliances. Despite the size and power of the US,
we see alliances as crucial to achieving long term aims.
The Soviet Union was defeated because of NATO, not just by US might.
If China is to be contained, AND persuaded NOT to go to war,
China must be faced with an overwhelming power of an adversary.
The US by itself may not be able to demonstrate that power.
India definitely cannot demonstrate that power.
Japan by itself cannot.
Australia by itself cannot.
Philippines cannot.
HOWEVER, if all these countries allied themselves to support each other
in case China went to war with any one of them, China would be chastened.
Would China dare attack India in Ladakh, or anywhere,
if such an attack could result in a war with not only India,
but also US, Japan, Australia, and Philippines??
Couldn't Indians sleep better knowing that the alliance protects them??
Japanese, Australians, Filipinos, and Americans would all sleep a bit better, too.
That is how alliances can work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regarding the idea that China and India can just "choose" to be friends -- I disagree.
They cannot CHOOSE to be friends, until they change their ideas of what they want, especially China.
India can be friends to China, because India has NO ambitions regarding China.
China, though, has ambitions. China wants to be master of Asia.
They already announced that they want parts of Siberia back from Russia, for instance.
Now, if India would not mind submitting to China, there would be no problem.
India, on the other hand, has intentions of building upon its independence.
Its only fear, since 1948, is that it would become a puppet of UK, or US, or other great power.
It chose the Soviet Union, IMO, because the Soviet Union was a weak economic power, so they had little to fear from it.
UK and US, however, had huge financial industry, that scared India. They did not want foreign banks to come in and control.
India saw how UK took over Egypt, and how it used its economic power to control
So, that fear was rational, IMO.
Things have changed. World finance has become more diffused.
India has grown economically. India has less to fear from that today.
Anyway, China and India cannot be friends, until China abandons its ambitions to control Asia.
I do think the next 10 to 15 years will be very dangerous. Xi is ambitious, and not too bright.
He is cunning, ruthless, and determined.
But, the wolf warrior diplomacy, and other tactics, prove the basic ignorance and stupidity of Xi and the CCP.
The problem with stupid people, is that they are not open to new ideas, or reconsidering held positions.
Do not expect China to alter its current policies.
Any war that China starts, is doomed to failure.
Yet, China will likely start a war in the near future.
Like I said, they aren't too bright.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1