Iran, Geopolitics and the Bomb

This can only mean one thing..Bill Clinton like air strikes without ground forces..

57% Americans support military action in Iran
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
Published: January 27 2006 15:22 | Last updated: January 27 2006 15:22

Los Angeles TimesWASHINGTON — Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran’s Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

Support for military action against Tehran has increased over the last year, the poll found, even though public sentiment is running against the war in neighboring Iraq: 53% said they believe the situation there was not worth going to war.

The poll results suggest that the difficulties the United States has encountered in Iraq have not turned the public against the possibility of military actions elsewhere in the Middle East.Bush ratings sink in latest poll

{But how would Behram know?}

By kicking Indian jack @sses. Any questions?

#150 by behram1 on January 27, 2006 4:02pm PT
Question for the inbred retard to answer...

If IT is so bad, why is Pakistan begging microsoft to come and invest in Pakiland..Why hold exhibitions with the stated purpose of inviting foreign investment in IT?

sour grapes?

If Indians are code coolies, pakis are failures at being code coolies...how pathetic is that.

{BTW, it seems you are for employment generation through private enterprise as i was arguing with masadi, which he disagrees with. } I do not agree with most of what masadi has suggested. I am making a distinction between private enterprising business that is still family owned to a large extent and MNCs whose growth are mostly from floating stocks, etc. and then the management usually screw the actual owners, the shareholders.

I truly believe in the capitalist system of free enterprise.

{as long as laws are not trampled upon.} Unless, they are caught, as was the case with Enron, Worldcom, etc., many MNCs push the envelop to skirt around the laws of the land. Because they can and they do it.

It is very difficult to hold an MNC accountable because they have huge power to circumvent the local governments. Even for the US, it could only bring a few handful of MNCs to justice. How can a developing country like India, even dream of competing with a bohemoth like Walmart? (i.e. if Walmart is ever allowed to open shop inside India), when the infrastructure of laws, finance, etc. are still not in place.

MNCs are truly out to safeguard the executives of their own entities, and are the most destructive force for the enterprising capitalistic system. They rob the ingenuity of their workers through intellectual property rights, they rob the host country of any fair taxes and place extra surcharge on their own consultant`s salaries, and generally do not provide institutional knowledge to the host countries. Can anyone genuinely believe that Boeing will allow India to get all their over 100 years of institutional knowledge?

If nobody knows what is the recipe of Coca Cola, then how can one expect Boeing to impart knowledge of making aircrafts to the host country? And this is the biggest drawback a developing country faces.

Something for fractoid junkies from India to consider.

Due to frazzing, US, the most productive economy in the world, wastes over $800B per year. How much does India, the most unproductive economy in the world waste? Any guess? No wonder, Indian code coolies are given less than what diapers costs for American babies. American babies diarrhea is more valuable than Indian code coolies.

Indians are strange creatures for humans to understand.

#129 behram:

it seems you are against MNC`s. but what to you mean by mnc`s?

are these the biggies from u.s. ?

or big companies from all over the world? or any foreign company?


infact, even samsung is a mnc. there are indian mnc`s too.


BTW, it seems you are for employment generation through private enterprise as i was arguing with masadi, which he disagrees with.
our only rift is with mnc. currently i have no problems acquiring growth through FDI or NRI or investments coming from india itself, as long as laws are not trampled upon.

Behram the bevakoof writes:

[quote]
Morrison points to another advantage Mexico has over India: Due to U.S. legislative restrictions, certain kinds of projects involving sensitive aviation and energy technology are more likely to go to Mexico than to India, a nuclear-power nation.
[quote]

Sure, definitely this is a brillaint point.

Trained manpower surplus in Mexico available for these projects: 0. Reputation of mexican management in technology and project delivery in US: non-existent. Number of mexican students training for careers in IT, management, business process: almost none.

In fairness to the mexicans, their economy is humming along fine. But only a moron would think they have any chance to create this type of services. It takes a lot of trained people and good management for anything of the sort to happen. There is a reason why there are 100,000 indians in US universities this year.

But how would Behram know? I mean he doesnt even know when end is (you know)....

#146 by Naqshbandi on January 27, 2006 2:00pm PT


Islamic Union of Democratic Nations


With a membership of what? 3? Turkey, Indonesia and Morocco?

Another Islamist wet dream borne out of impotent rage against the US..

Why does everything have to descent into an India-vs.-Pakistan war on Chowk? This was supposed to be about Iran, our Muslim brethren to the West with whom historically we have so much in common and who have produced the shining stars of Islamic civilisation (and who are also the fair skinned Aryans who invaded and conquered the indiginous smaller, darker, Dravidian natives in India about 5000 odd years ago, thus bringing advanced civilisation to that land--the first of many conquerers--the last being the British) but people have begun talking about pakistan and india!

As far as the US (and EU) is concerned India is their real interest, Pakistan is just being temporarily used for the time being and will, no doubt, be unceremoniously dumped as soon as it is no longer of tactical use to the Americans. I wish the rulers in Pakistan would realise this and re-align their foreign policy. Again this leads to Iran...Together we can work towards a democratic, Islamic Union of Democratic Nations similar to the EU, from Pakistan to Morocco insha Allah united by One Faith (Islam instead of Secularism) and One Civilisation (Islamic instead of Graeco-Roman) and One Currency (Dinar instead of Euro). This is a long term project, yet it is achievable via the ballot box. Insha Allah.

This is what Pakistan should be aiming for.

Of course, bipolar turd brain is stuck exactly where it should be. Sqautting on railroad tracks can never enlighten the brainless retards. Cut & paste technology can never help you develop knowledge. Serves you right.

hello inbred retard..read this, from a paki newspaper, before the vultures finish what`s left of your brain..or you get shipped to gitmo(or back to karachi)

Reality Pakis

US-India strategic alliance

By Ghayoor Ahmed

HISTORY bears witness to the fact that the United States focused its efforts on building a close relationship with Pakistan only when it deemed it necessary to do so to achieve its limited aims in the region. It did not consider Pakistan important enough to develop long-time relations with.

In contrast, American policymakers have made sustained efforts to develop a cordial and durable relationship with India for the promotion of major US interests in South Asia. This illustrates the dichotomy in America’s attitude towards Pakistan and India.

However, being one of the principal exponents of the non-aligned movement, India preferred to remain politically neutral and in order to attain great power status in the international system it endeavoured to maintain a non-aligned posture. Yet, American policymakers continued to feverishly work to woo India which was seen by them to have strategic possibilities of interest to the United States.

The end of the Cold War, however, brought about a perceptible change in the strategic outlook of India. To all intent and purposes it abandoned its hoary commitments to non-alignment. President Bill Clinton’s visit to India in March 2000 not only opened a new chapter in US-India relations, it was also heralded as a blueprint for future ties between the two countries. Based on the conviction that US interests required strong links with New Delhi, the Bush administration has been exploring ways of creating a strategic partnership with India since 2001.

Consequently, in 2004, the United Sates and India embarked upon a bilateral programme referred to as the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership (NSSP). Under the aegis of this programme the United States and India agreed to work on a quartet of security issues that included civilian nuclear technology, civilian space technology, high technology trade, and missile defence.

On July 18, 2005, both, the United States and India formally established their strategic partnership in the furtherance of cooperation in a number of areas of mutual interests, including the nuclear field. Many considerations underlay this “new relationship” between the United States and India, which is, however, predicated on their common desire of containing China’s growing military might and its emergence as a political/economic power. China is perceived by both countries as a potential threat to their long-term interests in the region and beyond.

It is generally believed that President Bush, aiming to boost India as a counterbalance against China, has moved closer to accepting it as a nuclear weapon state notwithstanding his rhetoric of a vigorous non-proliferation policy.

It is important to note in this context that while welcoming Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to the White House on July 18 last year, President Bush described India as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, and said that it should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states were entitled to. The president also said that he would ask Congress and US allies to revise American laws and international laws to allow nuclear trade with India.

One should not, however, be surprised at Washington’s nuclear cooperation with India which, in fact, dates back to the 1950s when, apart from building the Tarapur nuclear reactor and providing heavy water for its reactors, it also allowed Indian nuclear scientists to study at US nuclear laboratories. Declassified American papers also revealed that, in 1961, the United States had contemplated making India a nuclear power as a counterweight to China. That idea, however, had to be shelved at the time because of some problems in its implementation.

It is difficult to believe that while making a decision about a strategic partnership with India that would facilitate its emergence as a powerful entity with considerable political and military clout conferring upon it the status of a regional hegemon, US policymakers would not have taken into account Pakistan’s sensitivities.

Washington is well aware of Pakistan’s serious concerns about the threat to its security, particularly from its eastern neighbour, which leads one to believe that it deliberately ignored this important aspect.

However, it is equally intriguing that policymakers in Pakistan for many years did not know which way the wind was blowing in US corridors of power and, therefore, could not persuade Washington to adopt an even-handed policy towards Pakistan and India. There no point in making hollow noises against the US-India strategic alliance at this stage as it is now a fait accompli.

The US-India strategic partnership may be in consonance with America’s interests but will, however, create serious problems for all countries in the region as they have disputes with their bigger neighbour. It will particularly hurt Pakistan. Political analysts believe that the existing cordial Pakistan-US relationship might come under severe strain and place the present pro-US regime in Pakistan in a quandary if Pakistan’s legitimate concerns about its security are not addressed by the United States in a satisfactory manner.

Having been on the wrong side of history in Afghanistan and Iraq, the containment of China has now commanded President Bush’s attention. He has decided to use India as a conduit for this purpose. He has entered into a long-term strategic partnership with that country, ostensibly, to build closer ties between the two countries in different fields. The scepticism that this ominous development would upset the delicate balance of power between Pakistan and India and undermine the security of the former is well-founded.

A wide body of opinion in Pakistan is of the view that the United States cannot be relied upon as a dependable ally which underlines the need and urgency of evolving a new strategy that would particularly address the security concerns of their country. For obvious reasons, Pakistan cannot abdicate its responsibility for the preservation of its security and national integrity in the aftermath of the recent overtures the United States has made to India.

Unfortunately, however, Pakistan is also suffering from a number of serious political, economic and social problems. Ethnic and regional conflicts have particularly assumed critical proportions and might impinge upon its national security and territorial integrity.

It is, therefore, equally important to put our own house in order by creating national harmony and reconciliation. The need for pragmatism has never been so acutely felt as today.

The writer is a former ambassador.

#140 by behram1 on January 27, 2006 9:25am PT



Not really. This is sooooo yesterday.


Paki territory was bombed less than 2 weeks ago and the paki government says it didn`t know about it in advance or approve it...

How does the saudi king being invited to crawford or Mexico`s miniscule potential in IT say anything positive about Pakiland?

Reality	Pakis

Just to highlight, one more time, for turd brain Indians.

From Post 141:

Morrison points to another advantage Mexico has over India: Due to U.S. legislative restrictions, certain kinds of projects involving sensitive aviation and energy technology are more likely to go to Mexico than to India, a nuclear-power nation.

Race to the bottom. And that is what IT India is all about.

---

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/060127/b3969427.html?.v=1

Can Latin America Challenge India?

CLOSER TO HOME. Three years ago, Softtek bought General Electric`s (NYSE:GE - News) Mexico-based IT operations, absorbing nearly 1,000 engineers. As a result, Softtek became the multinational`s main nearshore solution for IT work in Latin America, performing support and maintenance for GE`s commercial finance and energy groups. Since then, Softtek`s revenues have been growing 40% annually and hit $146 million in 2005, with more than half of the business from U.S. clients.

Now, Softtek has 3,500 employees, mostly engineers, making it the largest IT outsourcer in Latin America. Softtek, based in Monterrey, Mexico, has offices in the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, and Spain.

Why go to Mexico, where labor costs are higher than in India? Because the efficiency gains from working close to the U.S. and in the same time zone mean nearshoring in Mexico costs about the same as offshoring in India, says Trevino. Up to 95% of work can be performed off-site, in Mexico, compared to just 60% to 65% for clients working with Indian providers, she adds.

NONNUCLEAR NEIGHBOR. GE still outsources 90% of its IT work to India, sending just 6% to Mexico, says Steve Morrison, GE`s London-based head of Global IT outsourcing. But, he notes, as India`s costs rise, Mexico will look better and better. ``If things continue as they are, India eventually will be charging the same unit cost as Mexico,`` he says. That`s why Indian companies have been hustling to find ways to perform a higher percentage of the work off-site in India, he says.

Morrison points to another advantage Mexico has over India: Due to U.S. legislative restrictions, certain kinds of projects involving sensitive aviation and energy technology are more likely to go to Mexico than to India, a nuclear-power nation.

Argentina, which boasts one of the best-educated workforces in Latin America, also is aggressively promoting software development centers. That effort was helped by a major 2002 currency devaluation that made Argentina super-cost-competitive and drove down the cost of engineers to less than $12,000 a year. The industry has been growing two to three times as fast as the overall economy and this year will have revenues of about $1.6 billion.

``Economies in acute crisis have one major advantage: You can start a new company with a smaller investment and find highly skilled and motivated people very easily,`` says Carlos Pallotti, Datastream Systems` managing director for Latin America and president of Argentina`s Association of Information Technology Companies.

Obviously turd brains are incapable of understanding the difference between requesting foreign investors and schmoozing like a whore in front of MNC`s. It is real hard for these factoid junkies, who squat on railroad tracks, to understand the true meaning of MNC`s investing. No matter how much hindoo chicks want white sugar daddies, the MNC`s will not deliver benefit to the locals. Just look at Jamshedpur, where Tatas have successfully tried to maintain business relationships based on equality and magnanimity. However, those who like to be banged galore have something else coming to them.

Alas, for turd brains, this is all too advanced to comprehend.

{ 2) Pakiland`s reputation as a jihadi hotbed...} Not really. This is sooooo yesterday. Only factoid junkie would claim that. Why would Pakistan`s Prime Minister be invited to the White House? Why was King of Saudi Arabia invited to G.W. Bush`s ranch? Very few foreign heads of state are ever invited to the President`s ranch. And where did Indian PM visited last?

It is real hard for turd brains to notice the dynamics of modern economic forces.

US homeland security forces have noticed those dark and ugly creatures who call themselves Indians. It is hard for humans to understand these creatures.

Once again, muslims will shine and hindoos will remain a subset of muslims.

BUSH KE LAADLAY KUTTAY