Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

If Pakistan was denying, how come the US was active and it was no secret.

What was the route that the US was assisting, if not with Pakistan's assistance?

Official denials don't make a thing secret. The US denied that it was aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, but the subject was still widely discussed and reported.

Originally Posted by Ray

For discussion, one cannot ignore the universal truth, just to deflect an issue!

What "universal truth" would that be?

Originally Posted by Ray

In my country such a way of squashing discussion is in Punjabi Maine Dasiya. That means - I am saying so. Period!

You maybe saying so, but the facts prove otherwise!

Are you not saying exactly that when you declare that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by the US, without citing any specific evidence to support the claim? What "facts" prove this claim?

Originally Posted by Ray

Events seem to suggest external encouragement.

How so?

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Official denials don't make a thing secret. The US denied that it was aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, but the subject was still widely discussed and reported.

A very ingenious explanation - everyone knew of it except the Govt which kept denying it!

What can one say with that type of an explanation.

What "universal truth" would that be?

Apparently, you don't seem to be in the loop.

Are you not saying exactly that when you declare that the Arab Spring and Color Revolutions were caused by the US, without citing any specific evidence to support the claim? What "facts" prove this claim?

Should we say all know of it and official denial makes no difference?

How so?

All know about it.

[Dayuhan]

This is getting silly.

Of course there are times when governments do things and deny them. Often the denials don't hold up for long: there's informed speculation, then leaks, then evidence. In the case of aid to the Contras the denials were eventually exposed, in the case of Afghanistan the aid was eventually admitted, in each case the truth was widely known before the denials ended.

In the cases of the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions, is there any evidence, even informed and credible speculation or analytical opinion suggesting that events were a consequence of American action? Or do you simply assume that there must have been American action because no dictatorial regime, however decrepit, can possibly be overthrown from within without foreign assistance?

I can tell you for certain that the 1986 overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos, generally acknowledged as the first of the "Color Revolutions", was not an outcome of any US action... if it's possible in one place, why should it not be possible in others?

I don't see any "universal truth" in this picture at all.

[Ray]

Indeed it is getting silly.

The unknown unknowns when the events were occurring are being emphatically declared as known unknowns even when they were happening!

What a Govt does covertly is never known immediately. Events that occur can never be pinpointed then. They remain conjectures. The reality is uncovered later! To believe that there is no external influences is being naive.

Interesting isn't it that the existence of MI6 was not officially acknowledged until 1994.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/52...first-website/

Take the Khampa rebellion against the Chinese. It was believed then that it was a spontaneous rebellion and none had any hand. Later it was revealed that though it was a spontaneous uprising, but it was also CIA assisted!

Why only the US being in the game of regime change. Though the US officially recognises it as a policy! How does one change regimes? Every time with wars?

USSR too have toppled/ influence rebellion dotting modern contemporary history. Marcos is just one along the line. Marcos was getting too hot to handle. Just like that loyal stooge, Zia, who dies in a mysterious air crash! Ask the Pakistanis and they have a different tale to tell than what the US, Israel, USSR or even India has to tell!

How about Patrice Lumumba? Gone by the writ of Fate?

Isn't it interesting that resource rich areas of newly independent nations are never stable? Their peoples are stupid and want turmoil and not a stable life?

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

The unknown unknowns when the events were occurring are being emphatically declared as known unknowns even when they were happening!

They were known, they just weren't publicly admitted. this is not at all uncommon.

Originally Posted by Ray

Take the Khampa rebellion against the Chinese. It was believed then that it was a spontaneous rebellion and none had any hand. Later it was revealed that though it was a spontaneous uprising, but it was also CIA assisted!

Assisting a spontaneous rebellion and initiating a rebellion are entirely different things.

Originally Posted by Ray

Marcos was getting too hot to handle.

Possibly so, but his removal was not a product of any US action.

Originally Posted by Ray

Isn't it interesting that resource rich areas of newly independent nations are never stable? Their peoples are stupid and want turmoil and not a stable life?

Newly independent nations are very rarely stable, regardless of what their people want.

The argument so far seems to be that the US conducts covert operations, therefore any event that seems to favor the US must be the product of a US covert operation. Surely you see the fallacy.

Have you any actual evidence suggesting that the Arab Spring or the Color Revolutions are consequences of US policy or strategy? Any credible scholars or analysts arguing that they were?

If not, perhaps we should simply accept that many things happen in the world without US initiation or involvement, and get back to the thread topic.

[Ray]

No bed time stories, please!

[Dayuhan]

Good... so we can stop pretending that the Arab Spring, the Color Revolutions, and/or Vietnam or ASEAN's position re China are/were made in the USA?

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Good... so we can stop pretending that the Arab Spring, the Color Revolutions, and/or Vietnam or ASEAN's position re China are/were made in the USA?

You are welcome to pretend that it is not!

[Dayuhan]

Given the absence of any evidence or body of credible informed opinion to suggest that these events were/are consequences of US action, it's pretty clear which position involves pretense.

[Ray]

We are all aware of evidence.

Heard of Iraq and Saddam bristling with WMD (like Uncle Scrooge with bank notes) that another chamcha (poodle) felt that it would be delivered in 45 minutes?! That to some was 'solid' evidence and go to town about!

What a pity that one selectively finds evidence and then discards the events as they unfold without a whiff of suspicion since it does not suit the temperament and the agenda.

Like China is in a phase of Peaceful Rise and the confrontations in the South China Sea is a mirage, or at least, just routine and fun and games!

Nations are tumbling down because of a writ from God!!

[Ray]

Newly independent nations are very rarely stable, regardless of what their people want.

Really?

India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq etc are so unstable that they are changing their boundaries because they are unstable?!

If you will contrive to state that they are unstable, who created that instability if indeed they are unstable?

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq etc are so unstable that they are changing their boundaries because they are unstable?!

If you will contrive to state that they are unstable, who created that instability if indeed they are unstable?

Malaysia, Indonesia, and India are hardly "newly independent".

When a nation achieves independence, or when a long-lasting dictator is removed, a power vacuum is created. Often the government that takes over is weak and unable to fully fill that vacuum. Various parties and factions compete to fill the vacuum and seize power for themselves, creating instability. Foreign powers may try to exploit that instability to advance their own agendas, typically by backing factions they see as amenable to their interests. That may exacerbate instability, but it doesn't create the instability.

Foreign powers do meddle and conduct covert operations. That doesn't mean that everything that happens in the world is a consequence of external meddling and covert operations: many things happen that are not controlled and even engaged foreign powers are often taken by surprise. Whatever has happened in any given case must be assessed on the basis of evidence specific to that case. Just because the US has supported coups in Latin America does not mean that every coup everywhere has support from the US or any other outside power.

[Ray]

Foreign powers may try to exploit that instability to advance their own agendas, typically by backing factions they see as amenable to their interests. That may exacerbate instability, but it doesn't create the instability.

Interesting is all one can say.

Analyse Congo to start with!

Blood Diamonds is a fiction?

It is just that the wild blokes running in the bush?!

It just may exacerbate instability, but it doesn't create the instability!

I like Carl's -Your quote is another variation of the "Oh yeah!" argument.

[Ray]

Malaysia, Indonesia, and India are hardly "newly independent".

And when they were?

And if they weren't, then who did it to them?

And why?

If they are stable now, why were they unstable then and how did they quickly recover for you to say that they are not unstable?

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

And when they were?

And if they weren't, then who did it to them?

And why?

If they are stable now, why were they unstable then and how did they quickly recover for you to say that they are not unstable?

They did go through periods of instability after independence, as of course you know. There's still some going on, though much less than there once was. I don't see any reason to assume that this must be something anyone did to them. As I said above, in general the primary cause of instability in newly independent countries and post-dictatorship environment is local factions struggling to fill the power vacuum and dominate the new political environment. Sometimes one faction gains control and suppresses the others, creating a new dictatorship, sometimes the contending factions work out a balance.

The period in which various factions are contending creates instability and opens the door for outsiders to push in, often by offering support to different factions. This is a major factor in some cases, minor in others. Post-colonial and post-dictatorship environments span a huge range of circumstances and events, and there will of course be exceptions to any general rule.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

They did go through periods of instability after independence, as of course you know. There's still some going on, though much less than there once was. I don't see any reason to assume that this must be something anyone did to them. As I said above, in general the primary cause of instability in newly independent countries and post-dictatorship environment is local factions struggling to fill the power vacuum and dominate the new political environment. Sometimes one faction gains control and suppresses the others, creating a new dictatorship, sometimes the contending factions work out a balance.

The period in which various factions are contending creates instability and opens the door for outsiders to push in, often by offering support to different factions. This is a major factor in some cases, minor in others. Post-colonial and post-dictatorship environments span a huge range of circumstances and events, and there will of course be exceptions to any general rule.

If Kashmir, Communists in Indonesia, the internal issues of Bhumiputra are not instability, then one wonders what is! They came into being how? A peep into history will indicate that the environment that was left by those who ruled left fertile ground for instability to happen.