posted January 14, 2008 01:35 PM            

The information I posted about the caste system in India is accurate and timely...happening today.

The other information includes girls from lower castes being kidnapped and sold into slavery...sexual or otherwise or forced into sexual slavery by their kidnappers. They are also routinely killed.

But, according to you, nothing like this is happening...and has not been happening in India since 1947...because the government says it shouldn't.

posted January 14, 2008 08:56 PM            

quote:

---

Missing Children Statistics

"…A child goes missing every 40 seconds in the U.S, over 2,100 per day

In excess of 800,000 children are reported missing each year

Another 500,000 go missing without ever being reported…"

---

posted January 15, 2008 12:15 AM              

Nevertheless, there is no doubt in my mind that a global pedophilia ring is in full operation, and growing in scope and popularity by the day. I think it is dangerously naive to assume otherwise. Sadly, the laws of supply and demand govern all things.

posted January 15, 2008 03:40 AM              

did u alsp ost that the crimes are unconstitutional , and the perpetrators tried for the same ?

no that wouldnt accomplish ur purpose would it ?

instead like the brain disoorder that U are,
u Stated that these crimes ,
constitutionally condemned ,
are committed by ALL Indians ,
not the nutty " Minority " in reality,
as " A civilised way of life "

also somehow u failed to talk about the other side of the coin

that we have 50 % reservations for lower castes in education and employment

how come u missed something like that ???

this is my last post to ur flimsy misrepresentation of our problems.

last question,
do u deny that our constitution considers all citizens eqal , and grants them equal rights.

and that all lower caste citizens have a 50 % reservation in employment and education ?

since denying the above, implies u have to grow the balls to admit ur misrepresentation of the caste system in ur thread , its
anyones guess what ur response will contain .

ANOTHER DENIAL

posted January 15, 2008 04:49 AM              

sorry to hear about ur

......whispers loud and clear.....

healthcare problems. :blueheart:

here are some comparisons..

my sister had a normal delivery in a local Redmond hospital. all expenses covered by employee benefits since my brother in law works for Microsoft.
they checked in at 10 A.M. , had the baby by 3 P.M., stayed the night and were out the next day.

in 2001 this bill worked out to Rs. 400000.
i dont know the currency rates for that year so i cant translate it to dollars exactly , but if i pick the average rate of a dollar to 45 rupees, it comes to approx 8900 dollars.

whoa
now for the comparisons

cost of having a baby , in a top notch private Indian hospital , top of the line amenities, natural delivery followed by a 2 day hospital stay

Rs. 10000, 250 dollars

cost of having a baby , in India in a government hospital,
irrespective of Caste, Religion, Employer or insurance coverage ,
natural delivery , irrespective of number of days spent in the hospital , with basic necessary amenities

Rs. ZERO.

the Indian government has its own healthcare facilities that provide free treatment , for any disease , to all citizens, no questions asked about employer or insurance coverage.

i have had personal experience of such health facilities in Mumbai and other big metros as well as towns that have a population of less than 500000, and fall in tier 2 category.

i cannot say for sure, in the absence of personal experience about smaller towns and villages where most of our population lives.

but since all medical students are required to work at such govt. hospitals for atleast 5 years before they can start their own practice , i do know medical students who have served in remote villages.

not that they r happy about being shipped off to impoverished rural areas, but becoz its compulsory , their accounts of the facilities are reliable.

except for cancer or Aids or the like, all major and minor diseases all treated by the govt. facilities, free of charge.
but if the hopital pharmacy does not have the medication u need, u have to procure it on ur own .

posted January 15, 2008 05:35 AM              

all such low or minimum wage workers have ID cards, that are to be shown at these hospitals to get the treatment they WANT, not NEED .
these cards extend to their parents, spouse, children and any other dependents.

such hospitals exist in addition to the other free Govt. health facilities.

that is not to say everyone queues up outside a free govt facility.
the upper middle class and sometimes the middle class, due to seriousness of the disease or lack of faith in free healthcare, usually end up at a private doctors clinic or a private hospital.
but those who cant afford the doctors fees , go to see the ones in a govt hospital, who are remunerated by the Govt.
the treatment prescribed to such patients is decided by the doctor , on the basis of what the patient wants and needs,
not what the Doctor or the patients Employer or the patients Insurance company , THINK is NECESSARY .
the tests conducted are also whatever the doctor feels ,he needs to arrive at a diagnosis, not what the patients Employer or HMO approve of.

of late there have been a lot of protests by the doctors who are employed by the Govt, for pay raises and the like.
sure if u comapare them to those who r making a ton thru lucrative private practices , it looks unfair.

universal healthcare is a minefiled.
until a few years ago i assumed the US has universal healthcare since i knew UK did.
and i knew UK was a tiny island compared to the superpower that loans millions of dollars to our countrys development and poverty improvement programmes.
our universal healthcare however does have the shadow of not being as good as a personal treatment procured at inflated rates.

not that i know anyone who DIED as a result of delayed or denied treatment, or because their HMO sucked their lives outta them.
i doubt how long it will last though.

posted January 15, 2008 02:04 PM            

Perhaps that has something to do with having saved Western Eurpoe from their own stupidity twice in the 20th Century...and having provided the capital to rebuild their cities and industries....and then, forgiving the debts.

Perhaps that also has something to do with providing security for Western Europe for more than 45 years...after the end of WWII. Oh wait, we're still there with troops, planes, tanks and ships.

Perhaps next time Europe calls America to bail them out or protect them from one or more of their aggressive neighbors they will get a recorded message:

posted January 15, 2008 02:20 PM              

as regards to rebuild europe you might prefer to think it was a generous offer but i think it was only to avoid europe falling into communism (which america regards as a danger), and not a philantropic act. not to mention that in the MARSHALL PLAN, the US TRIED (but they failed) to enhance their cultural domination by imposing Europe (in the contract, in black and white) to buy cultural goods (films...) so it's a bit like nowadays when the US impose democracy in irak by means of war... it doesn't work.

and finally you don't seem to really have understood the role your country did play (or didn't play for that matter so i'll just remind you what i wrote before:

the US became involved in WW1 in 1917 ( so 1 year before the end of the war and 3 years after it started. and that the us benefited from a destroyed europe to take the lead in world economics.

as regards to WW2 the US didn't move before 1942, and it was NOT because suddenly they had realized what a terrible mess was happening in europe, or to save the jews, but because the red army had entered the war and US interest in europe were threatened.

so you see, your country is no philantropic. not more than sudan or france for that matter so please stop the ******** about how your country behaved in its glorious time.

posted January 15, 2008 03:20 PM            

>>>if 20 millions soviets soldiers didn't die during WW2, france would
be speaking german.

I thought it wasn't just the soldiers but common men/women of Russia. Yeah I remember
their bravery. That was the turning moment for the war.

posted January 15, 2008 03:22 PM            

It is really nothing with out immigrants from other nations.

Even the person who discovered internet was a swiss nationality who took american citizenship.

The guy who architected pentium 3 is an indian scientist.

American nationalism is really growing falsely like the tower of babel.

Unless its checked it will fall under its own weight. Its nothing new as history has shown how great civilizations of the past has fallen.

I wonder if Jwhop the only American at GU who represents the absurdity called American nationalism?

posted January 15, 2008 07:34 PM              

quote:

---

the US became involved in WW1 in 1917 ( so 1 year before the end of the war and 3 years after it started. and that the us benefited from a destroyed europe to take the lead in world economics.

---

One year too soon in my opinion. WWI was just another pointless, ignoble, self-serving war in a long, long list of such wars the blood soaked soil of Europe has endured. The US should have left the petty Kings and Queens of Europe to massacre each other at will. Europe destroyed itself. It needed no assistance.

Clearly, WWII was another matter entirely. I've boatloads of sympathy for the English. Endless sympathy, in fact. Probably more sympathy than the British have for themselves, fools that they were to so begrudge Churchill his due. The Soviet people, as always, behaved with a good deal more honor and courage than their so-called leaders. Stalin fought the War for his own self-interests. You can't possibly think Stalin cared to save the Jews? If you're looking for unpleasant ulterior motives look no further. And while you're doing that you might also take into account that the original Communists rode in on a anti-WWI banner. The real red b@stards (that's for you, jwhop) wanted nothing to do with WWII and quite a bit less to do with WWI. And the French? Well, perhaps better we don't go there.

posted January 15, 2008 11:28 PM              

quote:

---

no actually TINK, go there, why not, because i'm french?

---

Let's say that I would be hard pressed to think of something nice to say about the French. Politically speaking, of course.

quote:

---

ps: kings and queens? in france during WW1? really ?

---

Did I say that? No, I didn't. It was a general statement and I think you knew very well what I meant. The incestuous, convuluted mess of royals and nobles in Europe played a major part in the war. At any rate, yes, the French took care of their royals with admirable aplomb, didn't they? A revolution they are, no doubt, deeply proud of.

quote:

---

ps: if you are able to say that Europeans should have dealt with the terrible war that was WW1 without US help, fine, i quite agree, but don't bother the rest of the world with your inflated american ego who come and save the world

---

I don't possess an inflated American ego. I have a list of grievences and concerns about the current state of my country which is easily a mile long. It performs the task of popping inflated egos quite nicely, thank you. I trust you observe your own country with a similar concern.

quote:

---

and another point TINK about the degenerated europeans who kill themselves, it's sad isn'it, well i think so, but what you consider american culture is a remain of european culture. when i see images of the lifestyle in the US i don't see people living in tipi around a camp fire going in the nature to collect berries and kill a buffalo or two for the tribe. i don't see that.
i see some form of EUROPEAN culture, that many europeans see as a degenerated evolution. my point here is not to say europe is better but to remind you that american culture is basically europeans (originally) who moved abroad and recreated with some minor changes their european ways of life.

---

Yes, it is sad that the Europeans excel at killing each other. Very much so. I point this out because I notice lately the tendency for Europeans to think of themselves as peace-loving, liberal minded progressives who wouldn't hurt a fly. Ridiculous! Such a strange rejection of those centuries of history they're always throwing in the face of the young upstart Americans. And speaking of America ... American culture is at an all time low. It's embarrassing, to say the least. I don't deny this. Western culture in general is damn near teetering on the brink of another Dark Age, if you ask me. If it is indeed a form of degenerated evolution, then both sides of the Atlantic are experiencing the same sorry fate.

I'm of European descent (English) and I am well aware of my country's cultural ties to Europe, and Britain in particular. Granny saw to that. I think Americans tend to see themselves as bearers of enlightenment in a political sense. I mean this in terms of our revolution, Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Say what you will about fat, loud, ignorant Americans but I don't think even you can take away from the granduer and nobility of those three accomplishments.

On the other hand, maybe you'll give it a go.

posted January 15, 2008 11:57 PM              

i don't know if you've been in europe recently, i hope you did, but people on this side of the pond start to define themselves as not-americans. their liberalism and peace loving attitude is obviously a good thing (we should all agree on that), but is due to 2 factors on my opinion:

the history, which reached a climax during the 20th century (and nobody in europe wants that again- hence the E.U.) and the fact that the U.S. manage very well on their own to maintain a sort of typical western yang attitude(even aggressive) towards the rest of the world. you know, i mean here the attitude which consists in thinking that WE know more than the rest and we can enlighten the rest of the world which would be waiting for it. typically western.

posted January 16, 2008 12:28 AM              

now in every countries the people knows what's going on anywhere. just in this forum, i'm communicating with people from the middle of nowhere in the US (no offence here) that i would have never known and listened to their point of view a few centuries ago, except if i had travelled there but by the time i had returned, i might have forgotten a few points, made up a few others and slightly changed the rest.

nowadays you find people in india (venusdeindia for example) who know more about the US government than some US citizens. and to that the US have no power. it's like the rain, you can't control it, except by destroying all the sattelites but i don't think the US would do that cause the american lifestyle is based on technology.

posted January 16, 2008 10:40 AM              

quote:

---

i don't know if you've been in europe recently, i hope you did, but people on this side of the pond start to define themselves as not-americans. their liberalism and peace loving attitude is obviously a good thing (we should all agree on that), but is due to 2 factors on my opinion:

---

I was in Europe in 2004. I expect to be back when my very young child is old enough to make the trip. I don't think I encountered anything I would consider to be seriously anti-American. Anti-Bush? Yes, lots of that. And rightfully so in my opinion. Of course I should mention that I was not in France.

Liberalism, as a broad philosophical term rather than a political persausion, is, I believe, very often to be honored. Peace-loving? hmmmm. Taken at face value I would say yes, but nowadays it has a few unsavory conotations. Cowardice isn't peace loving. Neither is apathy. And the habit of sticking one's head in the sand is most decidedly not peace-loving. That is possibly where Europe makes her gravest error. Those blood drenched centuries have gotten to you, haven't they? *sigh* One extreme to other.
The EU, I can't help but to add, didn't exactly do a damn fine job in Yugoslavia. I also seem to remember a few requests for some pesky American interference.

posted January 16, 2008 10:41 AM              

quote:

---

you know, i mean here the attitude which consists in thinking that WE know more than the rest and we can enlighten the rest of the world which would be waiting for it. typically western.

---

Absolutely. Guilty as charged. But here is the thing - so is Europe. The US, as you pointed out, inherited European culture. One of the cornerstones of which is that old charmer "The White Man's Burden". The Europeans were toting that idea to the four corners of the world long before the Americans took up your slack.

quote:

---

the more i think about what this thread brings up, the more i think may be the real problem the U.S. face today is that we live in a "global village".

---

This is such a good point. A great many Americans aren't completely aware of this global village thing, I think. What's more, most of us aren't particularly interested in joining up. I believe there are several reasons for this lack of awareness and eagerness, but here's one: geography. Europe is so very many countries all jammed together on a relatively small land mass. You can't but turn around and not bump into someone from an entirely different world. You're all bilingual too, right? In contrast, the US has only two neighbors, one of which has the dubious distinction of being a near mirror image (sorry Canada, but that's the reality). I'm seperated from the glories of Europe by a 8 hr plane ride and a $1000 ticket. I can't take an afternoon jaunt in Germany like the average Frenchmen. We have neither the need nor even really the opportunity to learn another language or become familiar with another country's culture. Our schools teach spanish and, depending on the area, maybe french, german or italian. The better public and the private schools teach latin. Nevertheless, unless you live in the southwest or California, when do you use it? No doubt the international business community finds good use, but the rest of us spend a few years learning to say Hola or Bon jour and then never speak or hear it again. Our very placement on the globe engenders a certain isolated point of view. In fact, the early history of the US is marked by an strong tendecy toward isolationism. Imagine! What I'm trying to say is there are very good, inescapable reasons for our lack of appreciation for this much ballyhood global village stuff that everyone else seems so excited about. Americans are very wary. Admittedly American businessmen feel differently.

quote:

---

so there's no point repeating how bad other countries may have behaved in the past (european countries, india and its cast system...) because everyone, through the means of communication, is focused on what is affecting their lives right now.

---

posted January 16, 2008 10:47 AM            

The German's have their struggles with immigrants tapping into their financial system, just as America does. They have their political satire, their various political parties and fights between the culture in one state verses another.

I live in Bavaria, before this I lived my life in different states throughout the US. People REALLY are people in most cases. Many Germans have a disdain for other cultures, America is probably not the favorite but we are not on the top 10 hated list either.

posted January 16, 2008 02:47 PM            

Obviously the EU does has its advantages:

a) Obvious lack of need for constant monetary exchange and stability of a single currency.

b) Single Euro makes trade a lot more easier and efficient (theoretically... I am not gonna get into the back deals some EU countries have been making.)

c)Reduced costs to firms overall and a more open market competition.

d) Less chance of War breaking out among EU members.

However, reality of the situation is:

a) Its too highly unstable of a market structure to actually pinpoint down its efficiency overall. So one really can't tell accurately if the system is actually working the way its supposed to Lol!

b) Quite recently there has been a drastic exaggeration of profits and benefits between the EU members. In truth, its kinda hard for people to just pack up and move from country to country for jobs and well... they usually stay put where they are. That kinda defeats the whole purpose of having a free open market economy.

c) Most EU countries now have little or no control over their monetary and fiscal policies... That really isn't going well with the local populas of most EU nations.