The Outsider Posted October 11, 2013 Author Posted October 11, 2013 I haven't followed OPCW' date=' any articles/effectiveness of OPCW, please share. I have a serious doubt that , like UN, they are as useless when it comes to matters of big 5 (security council) or NATO.[/quote'] This article has a good summary: http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.551941
punjabi_khota Posted October 11, 2013 Posted October 11, 2013 Good to see computational work being recognized :nice:
Cricketics Posted October 12, 2013 Posted October 12, 2013 Outrage in Pakistan about Malala not getting it.
SLICKR392 Posted October 12, 2013 Posted October 12, 2013 Outrage in Pakistan about Malala not getting it. Kid's overrated.
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 13, 2013 Posted October 13, 2013 I think Manmohan would feel somewhat gutted with the Nobel Peace Prize jury what with the single-minded, dedicated effort he put in to overlook and ignore all of Pakistan's transgressions in his "Aman ki Asha" program
Sachin=GOD Posted October 14, 2013 Posted October 14, 2013 And The Economics Nobel Goes To Free Market Finance And Speculation This is quite lovely: the Nobel in economics goes to those who are very much of a free market persuasion in their study of financial markets. Indeed, one of them is pretty much the inventor of the efficient markets hypothesis and another has (correctly in my view) argued that the housing crash came not from too much speculation but from too little. We could (and I will, with glee) regard this as one in the eye for those who insist that financial markets are broken, must be regulated out of existence and even those, over on my side of the Pond, who insist that they should be banned or nationalised. The announcement is here: The 2013 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was awarded jointly to Eugene F. Fama, Lars Peter Hansen and Robert J. Shiller “for their empirical analysis of asset prices”. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/14/and-the-economics-nobel-goes-to-free-market-finance-and-speculation/
King Tendulkar Posted October 14, 2013 Posted October 14, 2013 Ah the great nobel peace prize. The same prize yasser arafat and obama have won. But not mahatma ghandhi:hysterical:
vvvslaxman Posted October 14, 2013 Posted October 14, 2013 Ravindra Jadeja deserves atleast couple of them.
Macj Posted October 15, 2013 Posted October 15, 2013 Ah the great nobel peace prize. The same prize yasser arafat and obama have won. But not mahatma ghandhi:hysterical: Though it's a common gripe amongst Indians especially in light of recent winners, the fact remains Gandhi won "freedom" from an Empire that was on its knees after a devastating war, not to mention after continued appeasement. Independence would have come inevitably. At the end of the day no more than 10000 Englishmen controlled a country with a population on 293 million. Nobel prize? I don't think so.
hhunaeh Posted October 15, 2013 Posted October 15, 2013 Though it's a common gripe amongst Indians especially in light of recent winners, the fact remains Gandhi won "freedom" from an Empire that was on its knees after a devastating war, not to mention after continued appeasement. Independence would have come inevitably. At the end of the day no more than 10000 Englishmen controlled a country with a population on 293 million. Nobel prize? I don't think so. Nobel peace prize is a joke. I can't believe you just concluded that its too good for gandhi.
hhunaeh Posted October 15, 2013 Posted October 15, 2013 It would be beneath us Indians to accept this joke on behalf of gandhi. I am glad they haven't thought of giving it to him.
Macj Posted October 15, 2013 Posted October 15, 2013 Nobel peace prize is a joke. I can't believe you just concluded that its too good for gandhi. If that's what YOU concluded, you're obviously wrong.
King Tendulkar Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 Nobel peace prize is a joke. I can't believe you just concluded that its too good for gandhi. exactly that poster has gone nuts
yoda Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 Though it's a common gripe amongst Indians especially in light of recent winners, the fact remains Gandhi won "freedom" from an Empire that was on its knees after a devastating war, not to mention after continued appeasement. Independence would have come inevitably. At the end of the day no more than 10000 Englishmen controlled a country with a population on 293 million. Nobel prize? I don't think so. Seriously? Independence would have come eventually, so don't give credit to those who actually made it happen sooner?
CSK Fan Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Though it's a common gripe amongst Indians especially in light of recent winners, the fact remains Gandhi won "freedom" from an Empire that was on its knees after a devastating war, not to mention after continued appeasement. Independence would have come inevitably. At the end of the day no more than 10000 Englishmen controlled a country with a population on 293 million. Nobel prize? I don't think so. What logic. It took decades of hard work to get Independence. Few points 1) Population has got nothing to do with controlling. Its like today's US controlling Africa if they wanted to, that was the technological difference between the advanced super-power England and a poverty stricken India. 2) Appeasement if it saves one extra life is a million times better than an all out civil war which takes millions of lives 3) Whether on the knees or not, keeping India would still have been profitable for England and not to mention their prestige and pride were at stake Don't know where today's kids learn history
Macj Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 What logic. It took decades of hard work to get Independence. Few points 1) Population has got nothing to do with controlling. Its like today's US controlling Africa if they wanted to, that was the technological difference between the advanced super-power England and a poverty stricken India. 2) Appeasement if it saves one extra life is a million times better than an all out civil war which takes millions of lives 3) Whether on the knees or not, keeping India would still have been profitable for England and not to mention their prestige and pride were at stake Don't know where today's kids learn history The problem is you are taught the history that least offends anyone. Thats the Indian way remember. The truth is a small side note. Anyways , Britain was bankrupt and deeply in debt, they just could not afford managing India, that's the reason and the MAIN reason why you didnt see her fight. Had there been no WW2 , you think Britain would have let this so called "money making colony" go? In the worlds of Attlee, "the cost of squeezing the Brown man for more money costs more than the extract itself" But hey as long as your sensibilities arent offended, go on keep kidding yourself.
coffee_rules Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 So, if I understand this correctly, if WWII didn't happen, there wouldn't have been a backlash on colonization (the very basic reason for WWs), and India would be under British rule forever. But Brits held on to a lot more colonies post WWs as well. They gave independence to the carribean colonies in the 60s and hold on to some territories like Falkland Islands even now, why do you think they didn't get independence right after the WWII?
diga Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Ah the great nobel peace prize. The same prize yasser arafat and obama have won. But not mahatma ghandhi:hysterical: Should have been won by Putin for intervening in Syria & preventing a war...seriously ps: Did not Obama get it for the same reason? preventing a war
Macj Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 So, if I understand this correctly, if WWII didn't happen, there wouldn't have been a backlash on colonization (the very basic reason for WWs), and India would be under British rule forever. But Brits held on to a lot more colonies post WWs as well. They gave independence to the carribean colonies in the 60s and hold on to some territories like Falkland Islands even now, why do you think they didn't get independence right after the WWII? It's a simple reason , the cost of governance weighted with political coinage Britain would gain. There were 2 types of colonies - one for settlement and one for exploitation. India fell under the latter, whereas Rhodesia / Kenya / Barbados, Jamaica came under the former , which were started as a means of extension of Britain herself. In the case of the Caribbean the countries combined hardly cost the exchequer much and more importantly after around 400 years under British rule and British settlement, they technically considered themselves British and an extension of the British empire, exactly the reason why Barbados, Antigua, Jamaica and Guyana among others still have the Queen as their Head of State. If Britain was truly a victim of political correctness, why didnt they give back Gibraltar to the Spanish. They didnt , they never will because it's a vital strategic point plus it still points to the vestiges of British power. To answer your question, had WW2 not happened, India would have been granted independence in the 50s or 60s like everyone else, had WW1 also not happened then perhaps in the 80s.
coffee_rules Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 No , it because of peoples' revolt. Carib people didn't voice their revolt earlier. We got a lot of international press exposure because of Gandhi and the freedom movement which did speed up the process of independence. Are you a 'chaddi' dhari ? They teach this kind of history to kids at a very young age.
Recommended Posts