|
It comes down to cultural superiority/inferiority. India is trying to throw off cultural influences and become their own master, only to find that the influences of their past and continuing influences from the present have shifted the power away from themselves. They will never be a first rate world power and because of the deep socioeconomic issues, as well as the deep cultural issues present in the country, they have more or less lost the right to keep their seat at the dinner table. They need a good war, civil or otherwise, to reduce the overall population, and expose people to what it means to be free. Show them what it means to truly fight for something. Meanwhile, dam the Ganges, strip-mine as much in the way of natural resources out of the area, and setup massive block-housing with indoor plumbing. You cannot be a world power when people poo poo in the streets. Looking at you Philippines. If it isn't a civil war, then it needs to be an external act of aggression, maybe China determining there is mineral wealth in the northern part of India or somesuch. Something to reduce both populations by a large number. This is called a mutually beneficial situation.
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Fallom posted:The Western powers themselves are a pretty solid example of a group of countries that educated their people past the point of gang raping the village witch and incinerating her in the backyard of the police station. Sometimes you need to march the poor and under-educated off to a war for god and/or country to ensure that the education and cultural change takes root. It allows things to change back home so that when the fighting stops, the changes have happened. This would only benefit India in the long run. Unfortunately no one wants to make the hard choices and recognize that humans are a renewable resource. A little war, some contested territory, conventional warfare in a province or two, maybe with an aggressive neighbor, and a peace treaty that changes a boarder here, a little there, and the status quo remains largely the same, except the population is now 30% lighter and the average literacy in the country just increased by 20-odd percentage points.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea that other guy's a fuckin moron but there's no real discussion to be had with that kind of dude. I can ask a question about quotes and probably get a non-insane answer, but yea if I ask the dude why he thinks a little war is good for the poors I don't really think I'm going to get an answer that isn't stupid/crazy. You could just ask: It isn't good for them. It will be good for those that come after them. Smaller workforce means a tighter economy. Wartime economy means more jobs, including manufacturing sector. Consumption of raw materials means importing resources from other countries and increasing international trade relations. All of these are good for India. Its super poo poo to say people will die. People die every day. The question is: If people die today to make things better tomorrow, is that better than people dieing today for tomorrow to not be better? Because right now, that is what is happening. Change is too slow and ponderous in India to see serious movement. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 01:07
|
|