Ukraine is f#cked!!!!

[Sergei82]

Depends on what your definition of nation is. Before the British came and colonized the territory of what is now called as "India", there were plenty of Independent Kingdoms. When the British got tired of ruling and decided to grant independence thats when all the kingdoms were forcefully joined to combine into India.

Goa was under Portuguese rule until 1961 and India sent force to annex Goa from the Portuguese and the reasoning for that is not very different from the reasoning that Putin has for occupying Crimea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_India ... ion_of_Goa

There are plenty of Goans I know, who consider themselves as portuguese and Goans have this special provision to get a Portuguese passport and everyday there are 6 Goans who are converting to Portuguese

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 959211.cms

So what do you say about this? Did India do the right thing or the wrong thing?

Argentina inspired by this tried to do something similar. They tried to take Falklands from Britain. But Britain was no Portugal to sit quietly and watch.

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

Good thinking. That is how WWII started. Fortunately for you your grandfathers were not giving out their lives for freedom.

[x9200]

Yes you should be loyal to your country. But what if another country has acquired your country? Shouldn't you then logically become loyal to your new country?

Thank God men like you did not prevail else India would still not be an independent nation.

Depends on what your definition of nation is. Before the British came and colonized the territory of what is now called as "India", there were plenty of Independent Kingdoms. When the British got tired of ruling and decided to grant independence thats when all the kingdoms were forcefully joined to combine into India. There isn't much reasoning as why the southern states of India are part of India inspite of them being so diverse from the rest of India and so similar to Srilanka and yet Srilanka didn't form a part of India only because Ceylon was never made a part of British India.

I remember some earlier discussions where you defended India like you were her most beloved and nationalistically blinded child so what happened since then? It was like 1y ago. It is confusing because at that time your irritation towards people criticizing India appeared very genuine. Somehow it does not match the message you seem to be sending in this thread.

[Wd40]

I dont exactly remember which thread you are pointing to. I might have defended Indians there though, not India. Also everything that a country does is not necessarily right. Somethings are right and some are wrong. Even in my post above, did I say India did the wrong thing? I just said what transpired. I am not taking any sides.

[x9200]

Who are the Indians?

[pisceangirl]

Yes you should be loyal to your country. But what if another country has acquired your country? Shouldn't you then logically become loyal to your new country?

Thank God men like you did not prevail else India would still not be an independent nation.

Depends on what your definition of nation is. Before the British came and colonized the territory of what is now called as "India", there were plenty of Independent Kingdoms. When the British got tired of ruling and decided to grant independence thats when all the kingdoms were forcefully joined to combine into India. There isn't much reasoning as why the southern states of India are part of India inspite of them being so diverse from the rest of India and so similar to Srilanka and yet Srilanka didn't form a part of India only because Ceylon was never made a part of British India.

Goa was under Portuguese rule until 1961 and India sent force to annex Goa from the Portuguese and the reasoning for that is not very different from the reasoning that Putin has for occupying Crimea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_India ... ion_of_Goa

There are plenty of Goans I know, who consider themselves as portuguese and Goans have this special provision to get a Portuguese passport and everyday there are 6 Goans who are converting to Portuguese

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 959211.cms

So what do you say about this? Did India do the right thing or the wrong thing?

Argentina inspired by this tried to do something similar. They tried to take Falklands from Britain. But Britain was no Portugal to sit quietly and watch.

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

1. Depends on what my definition of...this reminds me of the Clinton deposition in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

2. There are plenty of Goans I know, who consider themselves as portuguese and Goans have this special provision to get a Portuguese passport and everyday there are 6 Goans who are converting to Portuguese

So going by your earlier logic, these Goans should logically be loyal to India but they are not. Hence your earlier statement has been disproved by your own self.

On a separate note, I hope you've told all the Goans you know that they are being illogical by not being loyal to India.

3. When the British got tired of ruling and decided to grant independence

And with that you've made a mockery of the entire struggle for freedom and of Bhagat Singh and Gandhi and countless others. I am appalled by this statement of yours and the way you've trivialised the issue.

[Wd40]

Thank God men like you did not prevail else India would still not be an independent nation.

Depends on what your definition of nation is. Before the British came and colonized the territory of what is now called as "India", there were plenty of Independent Kingdoms. When the British got tired of ruling and decided to grant independence thats when all the kingdoms were forcefully joined to combine into India. There isn't much reasoning as why the southern states of India are part of India inspite of them being so diverse from the rest of India and so similar to Srilanka and yet Srilanka didn't form a part of India only because Ceylon was never made a part of British India.

Goa was under Portuguese rule until 1961 and India sent force to annex Goa from the Portuguese and the reasoning for that is not very different from the reasoning that Putin has for occupying Crimea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_India ... ion_of_Goa

There are plenty of Goans I know, who consider themselves as portuguese and Goans have this special provision to get a Portuguese passport and everyday there are 6 Goans who are converting to Portuguese

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 959211.cms

So what do you say about this? Did India do the right thing or the wrong thing?

Argentina inspired by this tried to do something similar. They tried to take Falklands from Britain. But Britain was no Portugal to sit quietly and watch.

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

1. Depends on what my definition of...this reminds me of the Clinton deposition in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

I dont know what you mean

2. There are plenty of Goans I know, who consider themselves as portuguese and Goans have this special provision to get a Portuguese passport and everyday there are 6 Goans who are converting to Portuguese

So going by your earlier logic, these Goans should logically be loyal to India but they are not. Hence your earlier statement has been disproved by your own self.

Yes. They should be but they are not. You understand what "should" means? If Goans are not, does it mean they "Shouldn't"? My response was to your statement where you said, "If people like you prevailed, India wouldn't have been an Independent Nation". I was trying to tell you what a nice homogeneous nation India is(sarcasm, if you didnt get it).

On a separate note, I hope you've told all the Goans you know that they are being illogical by not being loyal to India.

3. When the British got tired of ruling and decided to grant independence

And with that you've made a mockery of the entire struggle for freedom and of Bhagat Singh and Gandhi and countless others. I am appalled by this statement of yours and the way you've trivialised the issue.

So the fact that India got its independence just after WWII was just a coincidence and the fact that they also made another bunch of countries independent at the same time?

How come the British were so bad only to India, like our text books teach us and the fact that Mr Gandhi "Freeing" India is the best thing to happen to India? Singapore and Malaya was also ruled by the British, but how come they were not so bad to them, so much so that when Japan came and invaded them they were actually waiting for the British to come and free them and rule them again? How come we dont hear about any famous freedom fighters or freedom struggle here, in this part of the world?

[pisceangirl]

Depends on what your definition of nation is. Before the British came and colonized the territory of what is now called as "India", there were plenty of Independent Kingdoms. When the British got tired of ruling and decided to grant independence thats when all the kingdoms were forcefully joined to combine into India. There isn't much reasoning as why the southern states of India are part of India inspite of them being so diverse from the rest of India and so similar to Srilanka and yet Srilanka didn't form a part of India only because Ceylon was never made a part of British India.

Goa was under Portuguese rule until 1961 and India sent force to annex Goa from the Portuguese and the reasoning for that is not very different from the reasoning that Putin has for occupying Crimea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_India ... ion_of_Goa

There are plenty of Goans I know, who consider themselves as portuguese and Goans have this special provision to get a Portuguese passport and everyday there are 6 Goans who are converting to Portuguese

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 959211.cms

So what do you say about this? Did India do the right thing or the wrong thing?

Argentina inspired by this tried to do something similar. They tried to take Falklands from Britain. But Britain was no Portugal to sit quietly and watch.

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

1. Depends on what my definition of...this reminds me of the Clinton deposition in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

I dont know what you mean

2. There are plenty of Goans I know, who consider themselves as portuguese and Goans have this special provision to get a Portuguese passport and everyday there are 6 Goans who are converting to Portuguese

So going by your earlier logic, these Goans should logically be loyal to India but they are not. Hence your earlier statement has been disproved by your own self.

Yes. They should be but they are not. You understand what "should" means? If Goans are not, does it mean they "Shouldn't"? My response was to your statement where you said, "If people like you prevailed, India wouldn't have been an Independent Nation". I was trying to tell you what a nice homogeneous nation India is(sarcasm, if you didnt get it).

On a separate note, I hope you've told all the Goans you know that they are being illogical by not being loyal to India.

3. When the British got tired of ruling and decided to grant independence

And with that you've made a mockery of the entire struggle for freedom and of Bhagat Singh and Gandhi and countless others. I am appalled by this statement of yours and the way you've trivialised the issue.

So the fact that India got its independence just after WWII was just a coincidence and the fact that they also made another bunch of countries independent at the same time?

How come the British were so bad only to India, like our text books teach us and the fact that Mr Gandhi "Freeing" India is the best thing to happen to India? Singapore and Malaya was also ruled by the British, but how come they were not so bad to them, so much so that when Japan came and invaded them they were actually waiting for the British to come and free them and rule them again? How come we dont hear about any famous freedom fighters or freedom struggle here, in this part of the world?

Why do I even bother with you!

Wd40, your "logic" is all over the place and disconnected. The thing is, you make sweeping statements, then when someone offers an example to the contrary, you come up with more statements which contradict your original statement which doesn't matter because you justify it as your response to that person's argument.

I did not say the British were bad, I do not think Independent and homogeneous are synonyms nor is heterogeneity inherently good or bad and I could go on but the thing is you have terrible listening skills and a closed mind so you'll come up with more outrageous sweeping statements and I have better things to do on a Sunday than to play chess with a pigeon.

[rajagainstthemachine]

Can we return this thread back to Sergei and talk Ukrainian crisis ? Every time WD40 makes a sweeping generalization a thread derails somewhere.

[Wd40]

Why do I even bother with you!

Wd40, your "logic" is all over the place and disconnected. The thing is, you make sweeping statements, then when someone offers an example to the contrary, you come up with more statements which contradict your original statement which doesn't matter because you justify it as your response to that person's argument.

I did not say the British were bad, I do not think Independent and homogeneous are synonyms nor is heterogeneity inherently good or bad and I could go on but the thing is you have terrible listening skills and a closed mind so you'll come up with more outrageous sweeping statements and I have better things to do on a Sunday than to play chess with a pigeon.

So you start personal attacks when you can't argue. Good. Thats not my style.

[pisceangirl]

Can we return this thread back to Sergei and talk Ukrainian crisis ? Every time WD40 makes a sweeping generalization a thread derails somewhere.

You make a good point Raj.

[ecureilx]

Good thinking. That is how WWII started. Fortunately for you your grandfathers were not giving out their lives for freedom.

I owe you a beer when i get back to SG

And with that you've made a mockery of the entire struggle for freedom and of Bhagat Singh and Gandhi and countless others. I am appalled by this statement of yours and the way you've trivialised the issue.

this, I just say you proved something is wrong with WD40 thoughts

I stopped reading when he said things about Sri Lanka ... stuff he has no clue about

let this thread be about Ukraine ...

[Sergei82]

To extent I was biased towards situation in Syria as well until things started happening to Ukraine. Now I understand that there can be much more to it than they show in news, so I have no right to judge any side of the conflict.

Btw, stocks are going up in the whole Asia bcuz of Ukraine, and some banks are starting to plan ahead accordingly (just heard that on CNA)

[Sergei82]

Good one - in English.

Russian Roulette: The Invasion of Ukraine (Dispatch 1-5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKsLlK52ss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y57vy4vWb-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnpXASPd1h4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGSrcYLsOMI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFlLN9E2kcY

Very fresh. Last one filmed just today!

[Sergei82]

Confirmed Russian army stepped from Crimea to Kherson region.

Obama talks to our temp prime minister on Wednesday.

By Wednesday the whole Ukraine may be occupied.

Such an impression that the whole world is going to betray Ukraine like they did with Czechoslovakia in 1938. So much for pro-European revolution!

And they wonder why some countries have so much hatred to the Western world after all.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Sergei, I know this is in poor taste, but I just had to share it to lighten things up a wee bit.

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/03/07/ukra ... -russians/