indiaregulator Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 One day, I hope we make them pay dearly for the way they looted our nation. It's going to take a new, proud, self-confident generation of Indians to do it. They looted your nation? I beg your pardon but the nation of "India" did not exist as a soverignty until it was unified under East India trading company rule in 1863 after the rebellion. Even then, it was more the equivalent of a regional spatical unification as opposed to the generic uniform culture of one nation. It's like saying France "looted" Germany during the Napoleonic wars. No, they looted Prussia and Bavaria, not Germany as Germany did not exist as a nation. Of course, looking at it from a perspective of Britain looting the land there were many negatives and positives towards trading company rule. First of all, the influx of the East India trading company (EITC) brought vast markets onto the subcontinent resulting in a huge influx of trade. The biggest misconception of the Empire and even imperialism as a whole is that most Indians believe the British sent an army to India, conquered and defeated all the various armies that were present and ruled the country with an iron fist. No, what British Imperialism was, was to secure long term economic monopolization that did not really care much about the oppression of the people there. Military force was only used when said monopolization was under threat. Britain went to India with the goal of domination of the subcontinental market relative to its European rivals. It did just that. It managed to secure the contracts of the mines and resources at very satisfiable prices and due to the relative low cost of workers in India many businessman and industrialists set up business there. What people also fail to undestand is at the time the majority of the subcontinent favored British influence and governance up until prior to the first world war. It benefited the area back then. The biggest factor is also that the EITC unfied the place under one central government. Before that it was warlords, factions and split nations fighting each other. Britain established a central government for the area. Honestly, were it not for British influence would India even exist today? India has many races within itself, many different "tribes" and religions and languages and sub-ethnical groups. Were it not for Britain, who would have unified the people? Of course, there were many problems the British Empire bought with them. The key being social divide and class. Subcontinental industralistics and resource managers profited fabulously with co-operation with the EITC however none of the benfits reached the average person. The area was drained of its resources for the gain of the few rich subcontinental industrialists and businessmen. EDIT - Also keep in mind the Empire bought with them new technologies, developed an education system in the area and also built many new infrastructural buildings such as railways, roads and new housing.
surajmal Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 What's so funny? Let's do a direct comparison. India's military, especially its Navy and Air Force is crap. First of all, its only aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier that was in service by the British just after World War Two. It's obselete by about 50 years. UK on the other hand has two supercarriers in production which will be ready in two years. Each supercarrier is nearly four times the displacement of the Indian carrier. Let's say these carriers are not finished before war breaks out, the UK will simply un-mothball HMS Illustrious, Invincible and Ark Royal and put them into service. Each of them are still infinetly better than India's. Nothing in the world, not even the American destroyers can match the type 45 destroyers. Air force is even more of a joke. India are using obslete French planes from the 80's and UK are using Eurofighter Typhoon's and Hurricanes, soon to be upgraded to F-35 Lightenings. Do we even need to consider the relative professionalism and individual training/strength of the two militaries. Bundeswehr, Isreal, France and JSF are given American technology which almost instantaneously gives them the upper hand against India. If you genuinely think India can take on any of the above countries in a war and win, then you are simply deluded. First of all, how the hell are India going to get to said country. You don't know what you are talking about. I'll give you another chance to research before tearing your ass apart. So try again.
surajmal Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 They looted your nation? I beg your pardon but the nation of "India" did not exist as a soverignty until it was unified under East India trading company rule in 1863 after the rebellion. Even then, it was more the equivalent of a regional spatical unification as opposed to the generic uniform culture of one nation. It's like saying France "looted" Germany during the Napoleonic wars. No, they looted Prussia and Bavaria, not Germany as Germany did not exist as a nation. Of course, looking at it from a perspective of Britain looting the land there were many negatives and positives towards trading company rule. First of all, the influx of the East India trading company (EITC) brought vast markets onto the subcontinent resulting in a huge influx of trade. The biggest misconception of the Empire and even imperialism as a whole is that most Indians believe the British sent an army to India, conquered and defeated all the various armies that were present and ruled the country with an iron fist. No, what British Imperialism was, was to secure long term economic monopolization that did not really care much about the oppression of the people there. Military force was only used when said monopolization was under threat. Britain went to India with the goal of domination of the subcontinental market relative to its European rivals. It did just that. It managed to secure the contracts of the mines and resources at very satisfiable prices and due to the relative low cost of workers in India many businessman and industrialists set up business there. What people also fail to undestand is at the time the majority of the subcontinent favored British influence and governance up until prior to the first world war. It benefited the area back then. The biggest factor is also that the EITC unfied the place under one central government. Before that it was warlords, factions and split nations fighting each other. Britain established a central government for the area. Honestly, were it not for British influence would India even exist today? India has many races within itself, many different "tribes" and religions and languages and sub-ethnical groups. Were it not for Britain, who would have unified the people? Of course, there were many problems the British Empire bought with them. The key being social divide and class. Subcontinental industralistics and resource managers profited fabulously with co-operation with the EITC however none of the benfits reached the average person. The area was drained of its resources for the gain of the few rich subcontinental industrialists and businessmen. EDIT - Also keep in mind the Empire bought with them new technologies, developed an education system in the area and also built many new infrastructural buildings such as railways, roads and new housing. This post is such a big :facepalm: A true sepoy if I ever saw one.
indiaregulator Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_Navy_ships All destroyers from the 80's and 90's. Aircraft carrier from the light carrier division of the British after 2nd world war. It's got some decent frigates, but all whom are sitting ducks comparing to Type 45's. In an "intensive attack" a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers operating together. This is a quote from an Indian forum. Our current destoryers may not be a match for it. Kolkata may end up with equipment that surpasses it. For eg: We may base an Aegis type defence system on the Kolkata class which will exceed Aster's capabilities on Type 45. So, we will have the PDV on one or two ships with the capability to intercept BMs. http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-navy/33225-comparing-indian-destroyers-type-45-destroyers-royal-navy.html So before you continue sprouting your "Holier than thou" bullshit, why don't you actually do some research for yourself before spouting nationalistic arrogant crap.
indiaregulator Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 This post is such a big A true sepoy if I ever saw one. See its posts like this which irritate me. You just disclose a ad-homen comment without putting any substance into the discussion.
indiaregulator Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 The military discussion is also very moot. There's no way in hell UK would somehow get into a war with India anyway without the rest of Nato joining in and then India are screwed anyhow. Logistical schemes, such as controlling the worlds oil supply means that India don't really have a chance against any NATO nation.
surajmal Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 What's so funny? Let's do a direct comparison. India's military, especially its Navy and Air Force is crap. First of all, its only aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier that was in service by the British just after World War Two. It's obselete by about 50 years. UK on the other hand has two supercarriers in production which will be ready in two years. Each supercarrier is nearly four times the displacement of the Indian carrier. Let's say these carriers are not finished before war breaks out, the UK will simply un-mothball HMS Illustrious, Invincible and Ark Royal and put them into service. Each of them are still infinetly better than India's. Nothing in the world, not even the American destroyers can match the type 45 destroyers. Air force is even more of a joke. India are using obslete French planes from the 80's and UK are using Eurofighter Typhoon's and Hurricanes, soon to be upgraded to F-35 Lightenings. Do we even need to consider the relative professionalism and individual training/strength of the two militaries. Bundeswehr, Isreal, France and JSF are given American technology which almost instantaneously gives them the upper hand against India. If you genuinely think India can take on any of the above countries in a war and win, then you are simply deluded. First of all, how the hell are India going to get to said country. Indian Navy Aircraft Carriers INS Viraat INS Vikramaditya (formerly Admiral Gorkshkov) - has already gone under trials, to be received - 2013 INS Vikrant - laid down 2009 - planned commission ~ 2016-17 (another one in the pipeline - design in final stages). Nuclear Submarines 1 Nerpa Class (in talks for lease of 1 more) 1 Arihant Class (atleast 5 more in the pipeline) 15 conventional in service (Kilo, Foxtrot, HDW 209) 6 French Scorpene Submaries to be received in the next 6 years Contract floated for 6 AIP submarines Other major surface ships 3 Kolkata class destroyers (1st just commissioned, other 2 in the following year - contract for 4 more floated) 3 Delhi Class destroyers 6 Talwar Class frigates 3 Shivalik Class frigates (7 more in the pipeline - these will be the stealth versions of original Shivalik Class) There are several other older destroyers and frigates Naval Air Arm - Frontline Aircraft 46 MIG 29K (in service + order) 10 tu 142 12 P8 A poseidons on order (24 total) LCA Tejas (in development) You also have the harriers but they'll be retired along with Viraat. I'm not even going to talk about the Army - since it is mainly about the manpower + Artillery + Tanks (Indian has those in massive numbers). Hence Indian Army > European Army in its entirety. Air Force - Highlights 272 Su Mkis (upgrades planned to make them 4.5 generation) 126 + Rafales (contract being finalized) 250+ PAKFA stealth aircraft (5 billion already allocated for development) LCA Tejas (Couple of 100 atleast on order) 60 Mirage 2000s 22 Apaches 180 LCH (light combat helicopters on order) + Couple of hundred Dhruvs (transport and Weaponized) + 100+ Mi 17v Several types of Drones in service in large numbers + Combat Drones in development. Indian Military also finally got its dedicated information/telecommunications network last year. (Surveillance satellites also in the pipeline) And I'vent even touched the Missile Regiment (with A-5 ICBM just tested with longer range missiles in development - same applies for SLBMs) Then you have the cruise missiles - Brahmos (which is unparalleled in the world in its class) and Brahmos 2 will be Hyper Sonic. Nirbhay cruise missile ( in class of Tomahawk) is going to be tested in the next month or so. Seriously, it isn't even fair. Only China, Russia and USA has an advantage in the missile category. Indian Military is going through a MASSIVE Procurement/development period. By the end of the decade, NATO (minus United States) will be a much inferior fighting force in comparison to Indian Armed forces.
surajmal Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 The military discussion is also very moot. There's no way in hell UK would somehow get into a war with India anyway without the rest of Nato joining in and then India are screwed anyhow. Logistical schemes, such as controlling the worlds oil supply means that India don't really have a chance against any NATO nation. Indian ocean is India's Backyard (where majority of Oil Shipping lanes pass through). If you take US out of the equation, Nato has no chance... Absolute no chance.
surajmal Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 See its posts like this which irritate me. You just disclose a ad-homen comment without putting any substance into the discussion. I'm not even gonna get into a pissing contest about what UK did for India. Even if you keep the 150 year long Economic enslavement aside (where India's share of world's GDP dropped from 25% to less than 2%), there is no difference between those Racist bastards and Hitler from an Indian Point of View. And I'd rather be a nationalist than a Gungadin. So go wipe your queens ass.
Clarke Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 The military discussion is also very moot. There's no way in hell UK would somehow get into a war with India anyway without the rest of Nato joining in and then India are screwed anyhow. Logistical schemes, such as controlling the worlds oil supply means that India don't really have a chance against any NATO nation. We have seen the paki tactic of using China's shoulder to take potshots at India but NATO's completely original, gotta give you the credit for that :haha: The Brits are actually pissed off when we don't buy ENOUGH military hardware from them. The Eurofighters you brag about, they were desperate to include us as a partner, not buyer but PARTNER. Why would you then think India & UK would go to war ? Expanding on the moot point, SAS forces joined our intelligence agencies in the search of your national hero, sheikh Osama Bin Laden a decade back. Since then, ISI trained fighters have been shooting down British/NATO soldiers in Pakistan. They even bombed our embassy in Kabul. So yeah, Britain & India are on the same side and your land of the pure is on the other side. Lets now hear your non-biased analysis now on how Pak Bahriya can smash holes into all the world's navies combined because Allah is with them.
Needforspeed Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Obama seems to be one of the few American Presidents who seem to mean what he says, even if some of it is against India's interests. So either he is a sincere guy or he is a very good actor. Indians fall for sincere guys..Thats why, inspite of eveything most of us like our own MMS. BTW, I dont mind Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton either :--D Besides Obama took care of Osama.
gs Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Obama is a non white underdog who became the president of a predominantly white country, which is a phenomenal achievement considering the history of the country in not so distant past. Everyone likes to root for an underdog, not just Indians.
G_B_ Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 The military discussion is also very moot. There's no way in hell UK would somehow get into a war with India anyway without the rest of Nato joining in and then India are screwed anyhow. Logistical schemes, such as controlling the worlds oil supply means that India don't really have a chance against any NATO nation. so what happened during the falklands then? As far as power goes, the UK is ahead. But in 8 years time India should be ahead of the UK and France.
JourneyMan Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 And I'd rather be a nationalist than a Gungadin. So go wipe your queens ass. Damn... owned!
Swing_n_Speed Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 No one's even talking about our drones. Our padosis are still using kites while our drone technology is among the worlds most advanced.
Swing_n_Speed Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Besides Obama took care of Osama. Took care of Osama my a**. He has actively funded AQ in both Libya and Syria. In the years to come these conflicts will throw up many many Osamas.
Swing_n_Speed Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 ho gayi shaanti nahi to pura article hai http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/ And here' what factcheck had to say about Obama's debt http://factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/ As of October 8th federal debt under Obama increased by 52%. http://factcheck.org/2012/10/obamas-numbers/ Honestly Obama/Romney it doesn't matter. Both stand for the same crap. America's only hope was Ron Paul.
ravishingravi Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 For India, generally republicans have served better thanks dems over the years. But when you see what has happened to that party, you are more concerned about its health than your relationship with it. So given their state, Obama looks like God. It is strange how party of intellectuals has turned into party of absolute retards.
anotherhawkeye Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Indians generally dislike bullies and GOP has become a party of the bullies...not to mention of retards and war mongers.
Ram Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Cant believe we are still doubting whether a second Obama term will be good for India or not. Obama has been more tough on Pakistan than any other previous US president in history (except for that one brief instant in 2001 when Bush told in Pakistan 'If you're not with us on the War on Terror, we will bomb you back to stone ages'. Just look at the state of US-Pakistani relationships. Its the lowest it has EVER been in the last 10-15 years and has come close to the breaking point several times in the last 2 years alone. When John McCain and Obama had a foreign policy debate before the 2008 Presidential elections, Obama said that if he, as the POTUS, had actionable evidence that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan and the Pakistani govt. was a)unable to act or b)not in position to act, he would go in unilaterally and kill Bin Laden. McCain reacted to that with sheer disdain, calling Pakistan 'an ally of US and that such an act would tantamount to intruding into Pakistani sovereignty'.For all their brave talk, the Republicans are pu$$ies when it comes to doing the really adventurous stuff. US foreign aid to Pakistan is at its lowest in a long time, the Pakistanis have simply given up on getting upgraded F-16s from the US and have now turned to the Chinese to modernize their air-fleet.
Recommended Posts