[frankgambale]

Guys , what we can do is probably structure our discussion like this ..

Support the claim in the topic : and state points to consolidate our views ...

Eg :

I am "for" the view that financial and other aid cripple the developing nations because :

1) They act as source of complacency .
2) They provide power to the leaders to decide where to divert the aid .
3) Money given as aid is not accounted for ..

and so on... (my points may not be of any significance , but this is just an example) ... this way we get to portray our point of view .

What say?
this is just a suggesting .
We can do what we are dong now.. that is ..paste a topic and a discription of it and then discuss it .

What i feel is this would be a real GD scenario.. there will be times when we will not know a sh** about the topic in hand .We still have to talk about it right?... SO let the guy posting the topic be the one who knows about the topic in hand and let us be the ones with him around the table .We cant stay mum in the GD right? so lets do it by giving our point of views and substanciate it with reasons .


What do you guys thing of my suggestion?

[chiplunkar]

good idea!! lets all do it!!! count me in

[tris]

Well I am game for this .lets start of with this now.
How about the Topic: "Power flows from the barrel of the Gun"

[sunilnatraj]

@tris: This is an interesting topic. Shall reply soon. But this post is purely for subsciption purposes

[frankgambale]

Hi Tris , sounds good!! will work on it ... what time do you suggest per topic?

[Krack-Cat]

Originally Posted by frankgambale

Guys , what we can do is probably structure our discussion like this ..

Support the claim in the topic : and state points to consolidate our views ...

Eg :

I am "for" the view that financial and other aid cripple the developing nations because :

1) They act as source of complacency .
2) They provide power to the leaders to decide where to divert the aid .
3) Money given as aid is not accounted for ..

and so on... (my points may not be of any significance , but this is just an example) ... this way we get to portray our point of view .

What say?
this is just a suggesting .
We can do what we are dong now.. that is ..paste a topic and a discription of it and then discuss it .

What i feel is this would be a real GD scenario.. there will be times when we will not know a sh** about the topic in hand .We still have to talk about it right?... SO let the guy posting the topic be the one who knows about the topic in hand and let us be the ones with him around the table .We cant stay mum in the GD right? so lets do it by giving our point of views and substanciate it with reasons .


What do you guys thing of my suggestion?

Very good idea!!!count me also...not sure if i can post regularly but i'll try to involve in the discussion as much as i can

[anupam_khanna]

why is such an important thread dead??

[frankgambale]

I agree with the statement because:

1) I think a countries military, though not diplomatically considered a yardstick for power , actually is the only yardstick with which a country is considered powerful or not.

My substantiating fact: No one raises so much as a finger at USA even though it is so obvious how they are masking their interest in Iraq's oil reserves with the weil of anti terrorism operations.

2) Only if a country has a good military power it is respected and other super powers outsource work to them.

My substantiating fact: China is supposed to have military power at par with USA but have not declared it .Even America knows that, which is why they are trying their best to support India with trade and bring India at par with China so there is some resistance for China form the trade front. (This is in light of the nuclear treaty which got the approval of congress USA a few days ago , unlike most of us think the treaty is a privileged gift to India .If you guys want info on it i would be glad to post it .... I will have to type the whole thing ... that’s the only problem :-) )


Any one else with their points?

[tris]

Originally Posted by frankgambale

I agree with the statement because:

1) I think a countries military, though not diplomatically considered a yardstick for power , actually is the only yardstick with which a country is considered powerful or not.

My substantiating fact: No one raises so much as a finger at USA even though it is so obvious how they are masking their interest in Iraq's oil reserves with the weil of anti terrorism operations.

2) Only if a country has a good military power it is respected and other super powers outsource work to them.

My substantiating fact: China is supposed to have military power at par with USA but have not declared it .Even America knows that, which is why they are trying their best to support India with trade and bring India at par with China so there is some resistance for China form the trade front. (This is in light of the nuclear treaty which got the approval of congress USA a few days ago , unlike most of us think the treaty is a privileged gift to India .If you guys want info on it i would be glad to post it .... I will have to type the whole thing ... that’s the only problem :-) )


Any one else with their points?

Lets look at this topic from some other perspective. This is a quote given by Mao Zedong in the context of the struggle by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie .He was correct in the sense that the bourgeoisie would never forfeit their power willingly in favor of the proletariat’s the use of GUN was justified.
But in today’s context if we justify the power by the gun then we end up justifying what is being done by the terrorists in places like Mumbai, J&K, and Belsan etc

To me the definition of Power has changed as per the evolution of Mankind.
In the stage of food gatherer & hunter the currency of power was Muscle power.
In the Neolithic revolution it was the size of the agricultural land & during the course of the industrial revolution, power meant capital.
Now in the knowledge economy it is Knowledge
So Power flows from knowledge

[contender]

I dis-agree with this, reasoning follows:

1) No battle is one until the last man has surrendered. The very need to power is in a battlefield be it verbal or actual. And more powerful is considered the winner and this winner is not decided based on the resources tht he posses but the fact as to how he fought.

My Substantiating Fact:
We defeated UK in India and managed to recover our freedom NOT at the 'Gun point' but bcoz of our die hard attitude towards freedom. Had the amunition being the deciding factor then we would not have managed to become free in 1947. So although we lost many lives we DID NOT call it quits so the 'Barrel of the Gun' had to bend and make way for the determined people.

Regards,
Contender