Here The New York Times explains that the war has done little to hurt American brands. Isnt this interesting?

Second, to place on record this racist BBC article. The BBC website -- when it reports on the third world -- is racist in not very subtle ways. Perhaps, I should start adding to this blog whenever I notice one of these incidents. This particular article describes the elections in Bihar as follows:

"It has a reputation for violent and corrupt politicians, election fraud and an electorate that has largely abandoned hope. "
...
The only other woman in sight is an emaciated beggar, cradling a sick child.
Scruffy youths hang about aimlessly, leaning on each other's shoulders, teeth stained red with betel nut. "

Isnt that interesting. I wonder how this racist woman decided that the electorate has given up hope? A good measure would be to look at voter turnout. Now, we notice wonder of wonders that despite the fact that Bihar is infinitely poorer than the US and hence its much more difficult for people to vote, voter turnouts are higher than in the US. Looks like the Bihar electorate has more hope than the American electorate.
Second, she does not mention the rise of regional parties and oppressed castes obtaining some voice through elections. Compare that to the US with two indistinguishable big-business parties.
Third, even on technological grounds this Indian election has managed to do better than the US.

Now, this is not to deny obvious points. India is not a democracy, just like the US is not a democracy. But, as far as bourgeois democracies go, India is probably more 'democratic' than most first-world countries.
Of course, the BBC report tries to maintain the myth -- as my friend puts it -- that:

in all non-white countries, elections are a hoax, governments are corrupt, 'they' cant get their act together, so 'we' must help them by stealing their wealth.

Isnt that impeccable logic?