Re: Starving people refuse to eat food aid
Andy Leighton
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> In other news, Indian restaurants in Scotland or the UK are concerned
> that immigration rule changes will prevent them frrom hiring the chefs
> from India who are indispensable to their business model.
I think you mean Bangladesh. Most, but not all, Indian restaurants in the
UK are run by Bangladeshis and have Bangladeshi chefs.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Walter Bushell
Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:46:41 -0800 (PST),
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > In other news, Indian restaurants in Scotland or the UK are concerned
> > that immigration rule changes will prevent them frrom hiring the chefs
> > from India who are indispensable to their business model.
>
> I think you mean Bangladesh. Most, but not all, Indian restaurants in the
> UK are run by Bangladeshis and have Bangladeshi chefs.
Bangladesh is part of India, just like Pakistan and Afghanistan. OTOH,
some analyses of current India says it consists of five nations. OTGH,
if greater India was reunited, it would be best for most of the
inhabitants of all.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Don Aitken
wrote:
None of them have ever been politically part of independent India;
Afghanistan has never been part of India, independent or otherwise,
politically, culturally or in any other way.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Stephen Harker
During the time of the Kushan empire what is now Afghanistan was
culturally part of India. Since the Kushan empire covered a
considerable area of modern Pakistan and parts of modern India it can
be argued that it was politically part of India. Of course, more
correctly, parts of modern India were part of the Kushan empire. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka> and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire> for example.
--
Stephen Harker s.ha...@adfa.edu.au
PEMS
UNSW@ADFA
Robert A. Woodward
Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
? I am fairly certain that sometime in the last 2300 years that
there has been at least one state with a substantial presence in
what is now Afghanistan and India (and Pakistan as well).
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Cheryl
That WAS a little while ago.
I'm still trying to figure out how a group of people not noted for
getting along with each other well when they have separate governments
are supposed to have improved lives with one government. It seems to me
that quarrels over the form of government, the legal system and even the
census (or without a census, current ideas as to how many people there
are in the various sub-groups) would kill off very large numbers of them
even before a new country managed to get international recognition as a
state.
--
Cheryl
Don Aitken
I'm sure that's true, but to me "part of India" implies "part of an
entity which had its centers of power in India", and I don't think
that was ever true.
cryptoguy
>
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:51:11 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> >> wrote:
>
I think Walter had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he suggested
'greater India' would be a good thing. Even just this morning, there's
a huge and angry political row in India over the leaking of parts of a
report on the destruction of the Babri Mosque at Ayodhya by Hindu
extremists.
pt
Walter Bushell
<53cb2106-8f01-4d00...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
It would moderate the Hindu extremists if they were not such a large
majority and I would hope that the Indian rule would improve the fate of
the Pakistanis. Pakistan is now a basket case with nuclear weapons.
cryptoguy
'Moderate?' It would more likely create a religious and ethnic civil
conflict on the scale of the 30 Years War. Let's remember that after
the British left, up to a million people died just while they were
trying to sort out Partition. Mixing things up again seems a recipe
for renewing the slaughter. "Why can't we all just get along?" will
work there about as well as it worked in Los Angeles in 1992.
The detestation continues to this day; India and Pakistan have been at
war around half a dozen times since then, and are currently in an
armed standoff in The Kashmir; the reason both have nukes is to
threaten the other.
pt
Walter Bushell
<c742f97f-4fc3-4e05...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well I don't think many Muslims would move into what is now India. OTOH
given economic conditions I may well be wrong. I was thinking that there
would be more sanctions applied to Hindu extremists if there were more
Moslems in parliament. Note that Pakistan has no problem with Hindus for
unfortunate reasons.
cryptoguy
Democracy only works if there is a certain minimum level of trust and
commonality between the two sides. That doesn't exist here.
pt
Don Aitken
wrote:
There are more Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan. India has
the third-largest Muslim population of any country in the world, after
Indonesia & Bangladesh. Pakistan comes fourth; the Arab countries,
other than Egypt, are negligible by comparison.
Keith F. Lynch
> The detestation continues to this day; India and Pakistan have been
> at war around half a dozen times since then, and are currently in
> an armed standoff in The Kashmir; the reason both have nukes is to
> threaten the other.
If they did have a full-scale nuclear war, how much damage would that
cause outside those two countries?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> Stephen Harker wrote:
>> During the time of the Kushan empire what is now Afghanistan was
>> culturally part of India. Since the Kushan empire covered a
>> considerable area of modern Pakistan and parts of modern India it
>> can be argued that it was politically part of India. Of course,
>> more correctly, parts of modern India were part of the Kushan
>> empire. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka> and
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire> for example.
> That WAS a little while ago.
More recently, both were part of the British empire. Or at least
Afghanistan had many British military bases in it.
Keith F. Lynch
> there has been at least one state with a substantial presence in
> what is now Afghanistan and India (and Pakistan as well).
Yes: The British empire.
Dimensional Traveler
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The detestation continues to this day; India and Pakistan have been
>> at war around half a dozen times since then, and are currently in
>> an armed standoff in The Kashmir; the reason both have nukes is to
>> threaten the other.
>
> If they did have a full-scale nuclear war, how much damage would that
> cause outside those two countries?
Enough that China would be _really_ unhappy.
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
cryptoguy
> Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> > Stephen Harker wrote:
> >> During the time of the Kushan empire what is now Afghanistan was
> >> culturally part of India. Since the Kushan empire covered a
> >> considerable area of modern Pakistan and parts of modern India it
> >> can be argued that it was politically part of India. Of course,
> >> more correctly, parts of modern India were part of the Kushan
> >> empire. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka> and
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire> for example.
> > That WAS a little while ago.
>
> More recently, both were part of the British empire. Or at least
> Afghanistan had many British military bases in it.
Really? When? Cite?
As a lynchpin in the Great Game, Afghanistan was fought over many
times. It fought wars with Britain: 1839–42, 1878–80, and lastly in
1919, gaining full independence with the last one. It did not take
part in WW1, WW2, nor aligned itself with either side in the Cold War.
The British Empire ended at the Khyber pass, regardless of their
periodic forays into Afghanistan. It's not for nothing that Kipling's
"The Man Who Would Be King"'s 'Kafiristan' is located there.
pt
cryptoguy
> In article <t20jg5pg2u90u0bhtmgm4kq2ncgg5s3...@4ax.com>,
> Don Aitken <don-ait...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:51:11 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:46:41 -0800 (PST),
> > >> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > In other news, Indian restaurants in Scotland or the UK are concerned
> > >> > that immigration rule changes will prevent them frrom hiring the chefs
> > >> > from India who are indispensable to their business model.
>
> > >> I think you mean Bangladesh. Most, but not all, Indian restaurants in the
> > >> UK are run by Bangladeshis and have Bangladeshi chefs.
>
> > >Bangladesh is part of India, just like Pakistan and Afghanistan. OTOH,
> > >some analyses of current India says it consists of five nations. OTGH,
> > >if greater India was reunited, it would be best for most of the
> > >inhabitants of all.
>
> > None of them have ever been politically part of independent India;
> > Afghanistan has never been part of India, independent or otherwise,
> > politically, culturally or in any other way.
>
> ? I am fairly certain that sometime in the last 2300 years that
> there has been at least one state with a substantial presence in
> what is now Afghanistan and India (and Pakistan as well).
Britain controlled most of India and what is now Pakistan as part of
its empire, but Afghanistan was never part of the empire. For a few
decades they nominally controlled its foreign policy, but thats about
it.
pt
Don Aitken
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>> Stephen Harker wrote:
>>> During the time of the Kushan empire what is now Afghanistan was
>>> culturally part of India. Since the Kushan empire covered a
>>> considerable area of modern Pakistan and parts of modern India it
>>> can be argued that it was politically part of India. Of course,
>>> more correctly, parts of modern India were part of the Kushan
>>> empire. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka> and
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire> for example.
>
>> That WAS a little while ago.
>
>More recently, both were part of the British empire. Or at least
>Afghanistan had many British military bases in it.
Nope. The British attempted to conquer Afghanistan three times, and
ware seen off with their tails between their legs each time. This
foiled all attempts to establish a protectorate; the best they could
do was an agreement that the Afghans would conduct all their relations
with third powers through the governmnt of India. There was no right
to interfere in any aspect of Afghan affairs, even in theory, and
certainly no military bases, execpt during the wars, each of which
lasted for only a few weeks.
Don Aitken
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The detestation continues to this day; India and Pakistan have been
>> at war around half a dozen times since then, and are currently in
>> an armed standoff in The Kashmir; the reason both have nukes is to
>> threaten the other.
>
>If they did have a full-scale nuclear war, how much damage would that
>cause outside those two countries?
It would dpened on the design of the weapons and, more important, the
delivery systems.
cryptoguy
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The detestation continues to this day; India and Pakistan have been
> > at war around half a dozen times since then, and are currently in
> > an armed standoff in The Kashmir; the reason both have nukes is to
> > threaten the other.
>
> If they did have a full-scale nuclear war, how much damage would that
> cause outside those two countries?
Define 'damage'.
I don't know if significant fallout would extend outside the two
countries (and Bangladesh), but there might be some nuclear winter
type effects.
Most the Muslim world would intervene on the side of Pakistan. Where
that could lead, I don't know. Imagine if India decided to take out
Mecca. China might also decide that this presented an opportunity to
enlarge its territory.
India is both a huge market, and a huge manufacturing power. Taking it
out would have noticeable effects on the world economy.
In the long run, the most significant effect might be psychological -
nuclear war, might, after 64+ years, become 'thinkable'.
pt
pt
If In
Lizz Holmans
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Robert A. Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>> ? I am fairly certain that sometime in the last 2300 years that
>> there has been at least one state with a substantial presence in
>> what is now Afghanistan and India (and Pakistan as well).
>
>Yes: The British empire.
India and what is now Pakistan and Bangla Desh. Afghanistan, not so
much. Ignoble retreat with one survivor, if I recall correctly
Alexander the Great very nearly succeeded, but he had to take an
Afghani bride to do it.
Lizz 'And I don't think Michelle would like that' Holmans
--
I stayed up late to hear your voice.
Walter Bushell
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
When China's *that* unhappy no one is happy.
Walter Bushell
Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:16:41 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> >cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The detestation continues to this day; India and Pakistan have been
> >> at war around half a dozen times since then, and are currently in
> >> an armed standoff in The Kashmir; the reason both have nukes is to
> >> threaten the other.
> >
> >If they did have a full-scale nuclear war, how much damage would that
> >cause outside those two countries?
>
> It would dpened on the design of the weapons and, more important, the
> delivery systems.
Ground bust or air burst? And how many missiles actually work and bombs
not fizzle? Plutonium bombs need to be remanufactured and plutonium is
*nasty* stuff to work with. U 235 is difficult to make, but is much
nicer to work with and easier to build bombs with once you have it.
Bottom line: nuclear situation unclear.
Walter Bushell
Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Mr. Great was into boys anyway; so it didn't matter. And his leaving his
Empire to "The strongest" worked. You see having the Hellenistic world
divided kept every one on their toes, until the Romans took over and
stagnation took over and civilization eventually fell. Diamond points
out that Europe took over the lead because it was naturally divided into
small areas, which never the less had to keep up with the neighbors in
innovation or end up conquered. You see, elites discourage innovation
because it tends to change who is the elite.
David DeLaney
> Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> >If they did have a full-scale nuclear war, how much damage would that
>> >cause outside those two countries?
>>
>> It would dpened on the design of the weapons and, more important, the
>> delivery systems.
>
>Ground bust or air burst? And how many missiles actually work and bombs
>not fizzle? Plutonium bombs need to be remanufactured and plutonium is
>*nasty* stuff to work with. U 235 is difficult to make, but is much
>nicer to work with and easier to build bombs with once you have it.
>
>Bottom line: nuclear situation unclear.
... worst Magic 8-Ball consultation EVAR.
Dave "reply and atmosphere hazy" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>> Stephen Harker wrote:
>>> During the time of the Kushan empire what is now Afghanistan was
>>> culturally part of India. Since the Kushan empire covered a
>>> considerable area of modern Pakistan and parts of modern India it
>>> can be argued that it was politically part of India. Of course,
>>> more correctly, parts of modern India were part of the Kushan
>>> empire. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka> and
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire> for example.
>
>> That WAS a little while ago.
>
>More recently, both were part of the British empire. Or at least
>Afghanistan had many British military bases in it.
Now I'm really curious.
Since the late 1940s "India" has been the name of a single
geopolitical entity. But what comprised India before independence
from Britain? Was the area now known as Pakistan not considered
part of India by the British?
The name Pakistan is a sort of acronym for Punjab, Afghania,
Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan." Weren't those distinct
provinces of India under the British when there was no Pakistan?
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Kurt Busiek
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:28:14 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>>> Stephen Harker wrote:
>>>> During the time of the Kushan empire what is now Afghanistan was
>>>> culturally part of India. Since the Kushan empire covered a
>>>> considerable area of modern Pakistan and parts of modern India it
>>>> can be argued that it was politically part of India. Of course,
>>>> more correctly, parts of modern India were part of the Kushan
>>>> empire. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka> and
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire> for example.
>>
>>> That WAS a little while ago.
>>
>> More recently, both were part of the British empire. Or at least
>> Afghanistan had many British military bases in it.
>
> Now I'm really curious.
>
> Since the late 1940s "India" has been the name of a single
> geopolitical entity. But what comprised India before independence
> from Britain? Was the area now known as Pakistan not considered
> part of India by the British?
It was commonly referred to as India. Technically, it was part of the
"Indian Empire" or the Raj.
> The name Pakistan is a sort of acronym for Punjab, Afghania,
> Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan." Weren't those distinct
> provinces of India under the British when there was no Pakistan?
Some of them. Some of them were broken up into different divisions, or
may have been Princely States. But the political union they were part
of was "The Indian Empire," not a single state called India. "India"
was a common casual term for it, though.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Howard Brazee
>>More recently, both were part of the British empire. Or at least
>>Afghanistan had many British military bases in it.
>
>Now I'm really curious.
>
>Since the late 1940s "India" has been the name of a single
>geopolitical entity. But what comprised India before independence
>from Britain? Was the area now known as Pakistan not considered
>part of India by the British?
>
>The name Pakistan is a sort of acronym for Punjab, Afghania,
>Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan." Weren't those distinct
>provinces of India under the British when there was no Pakistan?
I remember "East Pakistan", but am not old enough to remember when
India and Pakistan were one nation.
Afghanistan never was British though.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
<robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>? I am fairly certain that sometime in the last 2300 years that
>there has been at least one state with a substantial presence in
>what is now Afghanistan and India (and Pakistan as well).
Ruled by Genghis Khan (and then broken up by his descendents).
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Alexander the Great very nearly succeeded, but he had to take an
>> Afghani bride to do it.
>>
>
>Mr. Great was into boys anyway; so it didn't matter.
That never stopped such a politically advantageous marriage.
Hatunen
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:44:04 -0700, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>More recently, both were part of the British empire. Or at least
>>>Afghanistan had many British military bases in it.
>>
>>Now I'm really curious.
>>
>>Since the late 1940s "India" has been the name of a single
>>geopolitical entity. But what comprised India before independence
>>from Britain? Was the area now known as Pakistan not considered
>>part of India by the British?
>>
>>The name Pakistan is a sort of acronym for Punjab, Afghania,
>>Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan." Weren't those distinct
>>provinces of India under the British when there was no Pakistan?
>
>I remember "East Pakistan",
Now known as Bengladesh...
>but am not old enough to remember when
>India and Pakistan were one nation.
Whippersnapper...
>Afghanistan never was British though.
Not for lack of trying...
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:56:37 -0700, Howard Brazee
><how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:44:04 -0700, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>More recently, both were part of the British empire. Or at least
>>>>Afghanistan had many British military bases in it.
>>>
>>>Now I'm really curious.
>>>
>>>Since the late 1940s "India" has been the name of a single
>>>geopolitical entity. But what comprised India before independence
>>>from Britain? Was the area now known as Pakistan not considered
>>>part of India by the British?
>>>
>>>The name Pakistan is a sort of acronym for Punjab, Afghania,
>>>Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan." Weren't those distinct
>>>provinces of India under the British when there was no Pakistan?
>>
>>I remember "East Pakistan",
>
>Now known as Bengladesh...
>
>>but am not old enough to remember when
>>India and Pakistan were one nation.
>
>Whippersnapper...
>
>>Afghanistan never was British though.
>
>Not for lack of trying...
>
I read somewhere (therefore it must be right!) that irrespective of whether
they could actually control the country, the British declined to say it was
part of the Empire because they didn't want a direct border with Russia.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> Most the Muslim world would intervene on the side of Pakistan. Where
> that could lead, I don't know.
I don't know whether or not that is so. There are more muslims in India
than there are in Pakistan.
Charles
Don Freeman
Let's not forget that there are different types of Muslims, not all of
which get along with each other. Pretty much like all the other major
religions.
--
-Don
Keith F. Lynch
> Mr. Great was into boys anyway; so it didn't matter.
Everyone was bisexual in those days.
> And his leaving his Empire to "The strongest" worked. You see
> having the Hellenistic world divided kept every one on their toes,
> until the Romans took over and stagnation took over and civilization
> eventually fell.
Eventually. Greek civilization fell in 1453.
Lon
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The detestation continues to this day; India and Pakistan have been
>> at war around half a dozen times since then, and are currently in
>> an armed standoff in The Kashmir; the reason both have nukes is to
>> threaten the other.
>
> If they did have a full-scale nuclear war, how much damage would that
> cause outside those two countries?
Millions of tech support lines would go silent.
Keith F. Lynch
You mean American companies would have to hire Americans to man their
tech support lines? Americans who have been out of work or doing
menial minimum-wage jobs? And that customers who call those lines
would get someone who spoke English clearly, and understood the product?
Oh, the horror! Won't somebody please think of the children?!
Walter Bushell
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:44:05 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Alexander the Great very nearly succeeded, but he had to take an
> >> Afghani bride to do it.
> >>
>
> >
> >Mr. Great was into boys anyway; so it didn't matter.
>
> That never stopped such a politically advantageous marriage.
Even among the common people. Everyone got married, because that was
expected and most gay men produced children (or their wives did anyhow).
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> >Mr. Great was into boys anyway; so it didn't matter.
>>
>> That never stopped such a politically advantageous marriage.
>
>Even among the common people. Everyone got married, because that was
>expected and most gay men produced children (or their wives did anyhow).
The common people wanted lots of population. My kids had better
chance of surviving and getting rich if you had lots of kids too. It
was far worse to be an old maid than to have extra-marital affairs
that didn't contribute to this cause.
Of course now that your kids compete with mine, I tend to be more
upset if you have a dozen of them than if you had a lifestyle that
produced zero.
With the caveat that conservativism is often a basic value (which has
some utility for society). In that case it can take a couple of
generations to have liberal ideas to become accepted by conservatives.
Hatunen
Considering India has almost six times the population of
Pakistan, that's not much of a surprise.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Mr. Great was into boys anyway; so it didn't matter.
>
>Everyone was bisexual in those days.
>
>> And his leaving his Empire to "The strongest" worked. You see
>> having the Hellenistic world divided kept every one on their toes,
>> until the Romans took over and stagnation took over and civilization
>> eventually fell.
>
>Eventually. Greek civilization fell in 1453.
Interesting way to put it. Since it was the Roman civilization
that fell in 1453, but the eastern part of it, I would have
thought it was Hellenistic civilization that fell in 1453.
Doug Wickstr�m
wrote:
I'm not sure that counts as "damage."
Lee Ratner
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:51:11 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <slrnhgda7l.hls.an...@azaal.plus.com>,
> > Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:46:41 -0800 (PST),
> >> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >> > In other news, Indian restaurants in Scotland or the UK are concerned
> >> > that immigration rule changes will prevent them frrom hiring the chefs
> >> > from India who are indispensable to their business model.
>
> >> I think you mean Bangladesh. Most, but not all, Indian restaurants in the
> >> UK are run by Bangladeshis and have Bangladeshi chefs.
>
> >Bangladesh is part of India, just like Pakistan and Afghanistan. OTOH,
> >some analyses of current India says it consists of five nations. OTGH,
> >if greater India was reunited, it would be best for most of the
> >inhabitants of all.
>
> None of them have ever been politically part of independent India;
> Afghanistan has never been part of India, independent or otherwise,
> politically, culturally or in any other way.
>
Afganistan is more a part of the Iranian world than the Indian
world.
William December Starr
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> said:
> Democracy only works if there is a certain minimum level of trust
> and commonality between the two sides. That doesn't exist here.
But enough about today's United States...
-- wds