-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
[Thread Closed] 350 Rebels killed in Nepal
- Thread starter Giancarlo
- Start date
- Status
I just get sources, many sources at that fact.
Same in the United States too... and in Europe. So what is the point? They are much smarter in more developed countries so they don't get caught.
There were many different political parties in the Nepalese election.
Unfornately, democracies don't often exist. Singapore for example has been ruled by one party (correct if I am wrong) for many years, and Singapore is doing very well.
Hah yourself! My friend used to live in Nepal. They had plenty of grain but that was about it.
No an independent source...
There have been several projects started in recent years.
No it means the economy can grow because the economy does not have a debt burden placed on it, like Argentina.
Over 3,500 people were killed in the past seven years and that is because of the maoists. (99% blame on them) Who is for you to say these people had hearts when they were cold-blooded murders?
And go to hell! Bullfighting is not murder, it is only for you animal activists to say that.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Over 3,500 people were killed in the past seven years and that is because of the maoists. (99% blame on them) Who is for you to say these people had hearts when they were cold-blooded murders?
And go to hell! Bullfighting is not murder, it is only for you animal activists to say that.
What lovely double standards you have, my darling GC. You're just a bigot, and that's all you are. I think that word was created especially for you.
What other solution is there? Let the rebels take control? Get involved in one of those bogus peace talks? No. The Nepalese Army must, like the Angolan Army overcome the rebels. Angola has experienced a lot of death and misery, but that is finally nearing an end. Dos Santos is calling elections, and the Army has overrunned UNITA nearly. The Rebel leader is dead, and finally people can get on with there lives.
In Sierra Leone, for example they burned a bunch of weapons... got rid of them... but that was only when the rebels there were put under tremendous pressure by the new professional (internationally funded) Army.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Probably, but definitely to a lesser extent.
I thought you were Mr. Democracy?
Well, it seems like Nepal hasn't really ever had a big debt and their economy is still pretty sluggish...
Really? The only reason why the US is less corrupt is because the government is smaller.
I thought you were Mr. Democracy?
Why don't you look at the people I support for a change? Le Pen, Franco, Gianfranco (called Mussolini a great statesman), Berlusconi? Singapore also has a low crime rate.
Well modest growth like +3 - +4% what they were having until 1998 would be better than no or negative growth.
Pimpin Monkey
New Member
I'm going to add my 2 cents in on this topic...
IMO Giancarlo is right that new peace treaties should be made with these rebels. I really have to laugh at that one. Thats like saying why doesn't the United States gov't make a peace treaty with bin Laden and the Tailban.
I agree with anhedonia's view on bullfighting. However I can some what tolerate it because they do eat the bull after words.
I don't want to have drawn out discussion so I'm going to leave it at that.
IMO Giancarlo is right that new peace treaties should be made with these rebels. I really have to laugh at that one. Thats like saying why doesn't the United States gov't make a peace treaty with bin Laden and the Tailban.
I agree with anhedonia's view on bullfighting. However I can some what tolerate it because they do eat the bull after words.
I don't want to have drawn out discussion so I'm going to leave it at that.
lotsofissues
New Member
Haven't we learned anything from the Cold War? Think about the all the US failures when supporting inept/corrupt governments against communist rebels.
China the nationalists were in a cvil war against Zedong and his rebel army. The nationalists leadership was corrupt and were responsible for a heavily faltering economy. During the civil war the US spend massive amounts of money backing the nationalists.
Result? Well, the nationalists are now stuck on a little island called Taiwan and no country officially recognizes them.
Cuba in the 1950's was ruled by the also ineffective US backed Batista. Lots of peasants and lots of poverty allowed Castro to lead a quick rebellion. Now, Castro has remained in power and seen how many US presidents pass?
Vietnam the US backed government of South Vietnam was all of the things of the above: unpopular, corrupt and inept. So after hemmoraging billions what was the inevitable results; the south fell.
But think of the popular movements the US backed. Korea and Afghanistan had popular support against the communists, and the ending was a success.
The point I'm trying to make is if Nepal is in horrible shape then why are we supporting the current government? And even if we didn't have the former question then what about this $20 million? 20 million sounds like a pretty half --- gesture that won't do shit; just waste money. But, supporting a bad government itself is a half --- solution. If we are serious about helping then we should go in and make some political and economic reforms. Pour billions into improving the country. But, we aren't! So ---- it! We don't need to toss a half --- $20 million!
China the nationalists were in a cvil war against Zedong and his rebel army. The nationalists leadership was corrupt and were responsible for a heavily faltering economy. During the civil war the US spend massive amounts of money backing the nationalists.
Result? Well, the nationalists are now stuck on a little island called Taiwan and no country officially recognizes them.
Cuba in the 1950's was ruled by the also ineffective US backed Batista. Lots of peasants and lots of poverty allowed Castro to lead a quick rebellion. Now, Castro has remained in power and seen how many US presidents pass?
Vietnam the US backed government of South Vietnam was all of the things of the above: unpopular, corrupt and inept. So after hemmoraging billions what was the inevitable results; the south fell.
But think of the popular movements the US backed. Korea and Afghanistan had popular support against the communists, and the ending was a success.
The point I'm trying to make is if Nepal is in horrible shape then why are we supporting the current government? And even if we didn't have the former question then what about this $20 million? 20 million sounds like a pretty half --- gesture that won't do shit; just waste money. But, supporting a bad government itself is a half --- solution. If we are serious about helping then we should go in and make some political and economic reforms. Pour billions into improving the country. But, we aren't! So ---- it! We don't need to toss a half --- $20 million!
The Nepalese government isn't what I call inept. Have the commies ever learned anything? Every government they support seems to gone down the tubes. From Ethoipia, to Angola, to Nicaragua.
Yeah, but...
Explain Taiwan. And then be quiet. Taiwan is highly advanced and it was the exact same nationalists who made that way.
They didn't.
Now twenty times more rich GDP per capita wise than China. This is why the PRC will collapse in five years.
And then they got the even more ineffective Castro.
Castro also runs the poorest country in the western hemisphere before Nicaragua.
No on all counts. Again you have to look at what has happened to the communists. Nicaragua, Ethoipia, Afghanistan... I could go on for ages. You don't look at what failures communist governments are.
No NO NO! If the US didn't pull out North Vietnam would of surrendered within a year. The fire power was much to great. Just imagine if they sent a few more Destroyers there? Hanoi would of fallen. But they didn't and that was a mistake.
Ethiopia
Nicaragua (Communists were thrown out in 1989 I think)
Nepal was experiencing GDP growth of between +3 - +4% between 1991 - 1997.
Well.... read the next...
[qutoe] 20 million sounds like a pretty half --- gesture that won't do shit; just waste money.[/quote]
NO NO! The Nepalese Army budget stands at a $30 Million. Therefore $20 Million would provide a massive boost. BTW, The Ghurkas in Nepalese Service are poorly paid, if they increase pay, they can become the same Ghurkas that serve in British Service.
There was +3 - +4% economic growth before 1997.
Nepal has privatized much of its industries and liberalized many things. In 1990 I think, elections took place. The consititution I think is up for another change that may give the Prime Minister more power.
That would effectively double Nepal's military budget. Next time learn about the facts before arguing.
lotsofissues
New Member
From 1946 to 1949 the US gave $2 billion in aid to the nationalists!
The boom years for Taiwan certainly wasn't immediately after the flight. And that subject is digressive. My point is about the situation in China during 1946-1949 the nationalists were ineffective and this caused the ppl to look for other sources. My argument doesn't extend towards defending the economic policies of Castro or Zedong. So don't digress.
As I've said Afghanistan was successfull because there was popular support against communists.
Vietnam- They already suffered millions in deaths and we already suffered thousands. I doubt we could maintain our losses longer then the North Vietmanese. Even if Nixon stayed how are you so sure that it wouldn't be the US to first bolt out because of losses? No one can be certain.
In Nic. the communist Sadinistas overthrew Somoza. Only in 1990 were free elections held.
3%! In one of the more underdeveloped nations of the world! Truth is that means nothing when 50% of the ppl live under the line of poverty.
Looking into the subject of millitary budget. The library of congress reports that in 1989 the millitary budget was 33 million.
Rebel activity began in 1996. I wonder if they dropped a couple of more cents in the bucket when a war started? Think of the billions it cost the Russians just to fight the chechyens for a couple of years!
Of course there is ALWAYS a reason for ppl to look towards communism as an alternative, and its because there current one is failing. The Nepals might have made reforms, but if you search any human rights site you will find a different story.
Hundreds of journalists and human rights activits are being abducted by the police and army. Civilians are being abducted, shot, and tortured because they are called "suspected" maoists.
The boom years for Taiwan certainly wasn't immediately after the flight. And that subject is digressive. My point is about the situation in China during 1946-1949 the nationalists were ineffective and this caused the ppl to look for other sources. My argument doesn't extend towards defending the economic policies of Castro or Zedong. So don't digress.
As I've said Afghanistan was successfull because there was popular support against communists.
Vietnam- They already suffered millions in deaths and we already suffered thousands. I doubt we could maintain our losses longer then the North Vietmanese. Even if Nixon stayed how are you so sure that it wouldn't be the US to first bolt out because of losses? No one can be certain.
In Nic. the communist Sadinistas overthrew Somoza. Only in 1990 were free elections held.
3%! In one of the more underdeveloped nations of the world! Truth is that means nothing when 50% of the ppl live under the line of poverty.
Looking into the subject of millitary budget. The library of congress reports that in 1989 the millitary budget was 33 million.
Rebel activity began in 1996. I wonder if they dropped a couple of more cents in the bucket when a war started? Think of the billions it cost the Russians just to fight the chechyens for a couple of years!
Of course there is ALWAYS a reason for ppl to look towards communism as an alternative, and its because there current one is failing. The Nepals might have made reforms, but if you search any human rights site you will find a different story.
Hundreds of journalists and human rights activits are being abducted by the police and army. Civilians are being abducted, shot, and tortured because they are called "suspected" maoists.
Explain why the Taiwanese Army was built up so fast?
10 years after to be exact.
That is an abritrary and incorrect statement.
You are incorrect though about the issues at stake here.
Not to mention Nicaragua too... and in El Salvador the US made the junta carry out elections electing Duarte in the 1980s.
And who brought along that war? The communists did. I would also blame the French.
You are wrong. The North Vietnamese lost 1.5 million civilians and military men (yes, losing civilians is sad, but having Vietcong and North Vietnamese soliders using human shields is sadder.
I don't appreciate your biased answers..., my uncle served in Vietnam... got many medals.
What do you mean?
Yes, but let me tell you something: The Sandinistas caused massive hyper inflation, and screwed up the country.
Let me name another country, Cambodia. Infact the US supported Vietnam itself in throwing out Pol Pot. That was odd. Vietnam has turned more democratic lately and has allowed a lot of free market. But now elections should take place. Same goes for Burma.
You don't know what you are talking about. +3% is better than zero or negative economic growth which would be under an alternative government.
The Military budget in 1997 was $27 Million because the Kingdom thought the Maoists were poorly armed. That number will be up to $47 Million.
That isn't a issue here. You really should look at the facts.
No, no, NO! You want to see the facts? The Maoists aren't supported like the FARC and ELN. They aren't supported by the population. Period.
So everybody must reach your ignorant US status? Unfornately some countries can't because of the mentality.
Evidence? Or more cheap leftists lies?
Wrong. Those are more made up claims.
Look, I presented my ideas and you have presented your's. I support the current government because they are the best Nepal can have. I will have to get to responding to these arbitrary claims tomorrow because I need some sleep.
Last edited:
byrdgirl13
New Member
I have heard someone here argue that saying peaceful tactics should be attempted in Nepal is like asking for peace talks with bin Laden. Do you think I have set myself a double-standard and made myself a hypocrite? I do not support the way the US government has handled the situation in Afghanistan any more than I would have supported Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, and however many others there have been.
There's a quote in Grapes of Wrath that I find quite suiting; it says something about the money being continually spent to stop revolt, while the causes of revolt went on. It's not that I want rebellion to be allowed, I want it to be unnecessary. To get rid of a weed for good, you must pull it out by the root - not simply cut the stem.
There's a quote in Grapes of Wrath that I find quite suiting; it says something about the money being continually spent to stop revolt, while the causes of revolt went on. It's not that I want rebellion to be allowed, I want it to be unnecessary. To get rid of a weed for good, you must pull it out by the root - not simply cut the stem.
In case you hadn't noticed, 1997 was five years ago. Giancarlo, you were only 12 then. It is a long time to still be bragging about growth, especially for economies.
"Bogus peace talks"? Please, Giancarlo, you really make yourself out to be opposed to peace. You said you hate war. If you truly hate war, you will not demand that I tell you what other options there are; you will try to find some yourself. Simply believing in peace does not give me all the answers. I have questions, too.
Does the end of new death and misery bring any comfort to those who have already lost their families, their homes, their lives?
Okay, I will make my final statement now:
Sure there are better governments in this world. Nepal isn't one of them. Nepal is a very poor country. Peace is the only option and that peace won't be met until the current government is respected. Some talk about poor people when they don't have an solid economic plan, the communists we might call them. A solid economic plan is needed for Nepal. In Taiwan for example in 1950 the average person made $250 annually. Today they make up to $20,000 annually and the average GDP growth rate was +6.3%. I usually follow two economic models: The Chilean Model and the Taiwanese Model. The Chilean Model is where the government takes a iron-fist to law, and pushes through a powerful and solid economic program. That is one option. The other is the Taiwanese option where the government builds its economy virtually from scratch into a powerhouse. Is there another option? Sure. The commie option where the people suffer hyper stagflation and a poor economy. Many suffer low incomes in commie societies. Sure you can see that the capitalistic way is the best way, and now in Nepal, the only way that road could be taken is by military force. The Army must be beefed up and incinerate every last maoist and the economy must build itself up with a solid plan. But the question is Does Nepal have a plan like this?
BTW, this is it for my posting in this thread. Please feel free to discuss this more... I may make a few more comments but I will wait and see what people say. I am proposing a rock solid economic and military plan for Nepal that should be followed.
Sure there are better governments in this world. Nepal isn't one of them. Nepal is a very poor country. Peace is the only option and that peace won't be met until the current government is respected. Some talk about poor people when they don't have an solid economic plan, the communists we might call them. A solid economic plan is needed for Nepal. In Taiwan for example in 1950 the average person made $250 annually. Today they make up to $20,000 annually and the average GDP growth rate was +6.3%. I usually follow two economic models: The Chilean Model and the Taiwanese Model. The Chilean Model is where the government takes a iron-fist to law, and pushes through a powerful and solid economic program. That is one option. The other is the Taiwanese option where the government builds its economy virtually from scratch into a powerhouse. Is there another option? Sure. The commie option where the people suffer hyper stagflation and a poor economy. Many suffer low incomes in commie societies. Sure you can see that the capitalistic way is the best way, and now in Nepal, the only way that road could be taken is by military force. The Army must be beefed up and incinerate every last maoist and the economy must build itself up with a solid plan. But the question is Does Nepal have a plan like this?
BTW, this is it for my posting in this thread. Please feel free to discuss this more... I may make a few more comments but I will wait and see what people say. I am proposing a rock solid economic and military plan for Nepal that should be followed.
Last edited:
byrdgirl13
New Member
You want them to burn, Giancarlo? You want them to burn, to have flames licking at their skin, searing them to the death. Do you understand what that means, Giancarlo? I hope not. I hope not.
Perhaps they do deserve death, perhaps they don't. But as a wise author once wrote,
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment."
Perhaps they do deserve death, perhaps they don't. But as a wise author once wrote,
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment."
Huh, do you have some kind of official function at these boards?
Why don't you talk about all this with your father? That is what you want to do, isn't it? As it's his approval you are so desperate to get. Hate to disappoint you, but I don't think he reads these boards so maybe you should find another way to get his attention.
- Status
