81–90 of 109 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India has always felt that they had an understanding with China about the border. However they ignore the fact that China felt threatened by Soviet/Indian friendship. Often they blame Nehru for being naïve, whilst at the same time blaming China for betrayal. I don't think those two arguments are very compatible. In the end it was probably beneficial for India. They modernised their army, which let them defeat (Chines…
Every country by default assumes that they have an understanding with neighbours about it's borders. Of Course that doesn't stop anybody from trying to grab a piece. As far as the two arguments go, I don't see the incompatibility. Can you share your thoughts about this? Chinese approach was rather brute force, they just poured a lot of soldiers there, far from efficient.
If it was a "betrayal" then Nehru wasn't naïve (because betrayal implies deliberately misleading). OTOH, if Nehru was naïve, then it wasn't a betrayal (because it was so clear to everyone except Nehru that something was going to happen).
I think the truth is somewhere in between. I haven't studied it the conflict in depth, but it seems to me that China's policy towards the Indian border region changed (at least partially because of Indian actions), and India didn't realize it quickly enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > For that reason, the PLA has to engage in constant “political work” at the expense of training for combat. This means that 30 to 40 percent of an officer’s career (or roughly 15 hours per 40-hour work week) is wasted studying CCP propaganda, singing patriotic songs, and conducting small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory. I very much doubt the conduct "small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory"…
You need to travel to China. Now, not 20 years ago, if you want to be rich(or do anything by the way) there you need to be a member of the communist party. And yes, it may surprise you but in communist party they discuss and study communism theory. The "openness" is a survival strategy for them, a release valve if you wish. No way they could have survived that long without it.
Yes, the CCP members believe in Marxism as much as the members of Church of England believe in God, according to my personal speculations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's self-evidently backwards .. ---------- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - US Declaration of Independence (while the USA is by no means perfect, there's hardly a more "perfect" and succinct expression of human rights than that)
As an expression of human rights, the above quote by itself is useless - it is far too vague. A lot of people would argue that the above is totally incompatible even with the US form of government, for example
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you serious? The U.S. has successfully fought wars in the recent past. High ranking officers are routinely sacked when they lose touch of soldiering and their mission fails. The U.S. version of party political indoctrination is just a little silliness like lesbian sensitivity training.
Things like the Rifleman's Creed aren't political indoctrination? Every army has political indoctrination - it's how you motivate people to put their lives on the line for your goals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's self-evidently backwards .. ---------- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - US Declaration of Independence (while the USA is by no means perfect, there's hardly a more "perfect" and succinct expression of human rights than that)
As an expression of human rights, the above quote by itself is useless - it is far too vague. A lot of people would argue that the above is totally incompatible even with the US form of government, for example
What if it were specific and stated "all property owning white males are created equal", which is what it practically meant at the time? Specifics were deliberately left out .. it is just an outline of what we should aim for .. Here is what Lincoln had to say regarding this:
I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all, constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere. -Abraham Lincoln
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?
There is a reason for this: so that the Army (or any of the other British institutions that nominally have the Queen at the top of their org charts) can't be politicized. That's the theory anyway, tho' New Labour tried their best to stuff the civil service and the BBC with their cronies. So when the PM of the day says "go and shoot the leader of the opposition" the soldier or marine or policeman can say "sorry mate,…
Even the "pledge of allegiance" is to "the flag", "the republic for which it stands" etc.
So, no, you don't need an antiquated buffoonish taxpayer subsidized family to swear allegiance to in order to avoid politicization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > For that reason, the PLA has to engage in constant “political work” at the expense of training for combat. This means that 30 to 40 percent of an officer’s career (or roughly 15 hours per 40-hour work week) is wasted studying CCP propaganda, singing patriotic songs, and conducting small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory. I very much doubt the conduct "small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory"…
You need to travel to China. Now, not 20 years ago, if you want to be rich(or do anything by the way) there you need to be a member of the communist party. And yes, it may surprise you but in communist party they discuss and study communism theory. The "openness" is a survival strategy for them, a release valve if you wish. No way they could have survived that long without it.
That I know.
That they really study "communist theory" is what I doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK has no constitution.
Yes, it does. Just not one codified in a single document. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_King...
> Historically, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."[3] Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[4] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament.
So, basically no, it doesn't have a constitution analogous to the US Constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a reason for this: so that the Army (or any of the other British institutions that nominally have the Queen at the top of their org charts) can't be politicized. That's the theory anyway, tho' New Labour tried their best to stuff the civil service and the BBC with their cronies. So when the PM of the day says "go and shoot the leader of the opposition" the soldier or marine or policeman can say "sorry mate,…
As far as I can tell, the status of the armed forces in the UK is rather complex - they do indeed report to the monarch in her/his capacity as commander-in-chief but they only legally exists because of Parliament repeatedly passing Armed Forces Acts every 5 years or so to legalize them otherwise they would be illegal under the 1689 Bill of Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 Also worth noting tha…