Iran: The Next Stop?

#146 by behram1 on March 11, 2006 7:36pm PT

George Bush bitch slapped Pakiland..Pakiland has decided to go with China..The clash of civilizations comes true...China+Pakistan against US+India...

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/dmag1.htm

A different ball game
By Syed Shahid Husain

Whether George W. Bush’s visit to Pakistan was a success or failure depends on whose side you are on. If you are on President Musharraf’s side, you would put a spin on the grand success of Bush’s visit simply because he found time to call on him.

According to an ARD leader: “The US president signed agreements with India and made a stopover in Pakistan, as he did in Kabul. Bush spent more time with Pakistani children playing cricket (which he did not like) and meeting representatives of the NGOs, showing his country was no more interested in General Musharraf.” If you were to look at the impact of the visit back home in Washington, the part of Pakistan’s visit won’t merit even a blip on their radar screen.

In preparation for Bush’s visit to Pakistan panic buttons had been pressed. The visit was heralded with aerial action on Miramshah in North Waziristan. Within three days the score was: 100 killed. Mayhem from heavens doesn’t remain confined to militants. Innocent men, women and children are the more likely victims. Leaders were arrested, which included Imran Khan and Qazi Husain Ahmad. Islamabad was closed to outside world and all links — road, rail, air and even sea links (nearest being Karachi) — were cut off.

The agreement between the two countries is devoid of any substance. Musharraf focused on strategic cooperation, Kashmir, Pakistan’s quest for civilian nuclear technology and market access. The visitor’s agenda was entirely different and his focus was on terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation and democracy. They were obviously not in sync. George Bush, therefore, thanked the host for agreeing to join the Container Security Initiative. As far as Kashmir is concerned, he promised to encourage the parties concerned to come together. Any concession to the general would have been counterproductive from the point of view of lovers of democracy. Bush tried to balance his support for his great ally who took the correct decision to side with the Americans rather than be on the receiving end of missiles, and smart ones at that, with some noises in favour of democracy, perhaps on the advice of the State Department. Not that Bush is very keen on democracy. He didn’t like a few more Ikhwanul Muslimeen getting elected to the Egyptian parliament and hates the outcome of Palestinian elections that has thrown Bush and his administration a challenge in the form of Hamas. All decisions must conform to the imperialist agenda.

South Asia, rather than the Indian subcontinent that we have known all along, includes India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The area has been designated as an outpost for regional control of the empire. Two of them are on one side and Pakistan appears to have been isolated. We are assigned ‘guard duty’ and the US president came to hold a law and order meeting, which bore close resemblance to the meetings that the deputy commissioner used to hold regularly with SP in attendance in our country. He would ask him how far he had succeeded in controlling crime and how many outlaws he had arrested since the last meeting, and whether the crime graph was up or down etc. “Part of my mission,” in the words of the visitor, “was to determine whether or not the president (Pakistani) is committed as he has been in the past to bringing these terrorists to justice, and he is.” He went on to say, “There is lot of work to be done n defeating Al Qaeda.” Does any of this sound laudatory?

What did Bush accomplish during his visit to Pakistan? He cut a deal on nuclear technology with India. We wanted parity with India. This was firmly denied and our government sheepishly started denying that we ever wanted any such thing in the first place.

#147

Couple of things:

1) Even if the nuclear deal falls through to the delight of the wretched neighbors to our West, we can make ALL the bombs we want.

2) NOTHING can stop India. Absolutely NOTHING.

3) Pakistan`s future as a nation is pretty bleak. According to experts, it is coming apart at the seams.

4) I hope RAW is doing its job in Balochistan and Sindh and Punjab and NWFP.

:)

Go suck on your sugarcanes, and practice eating with your hands tied.

Bipolar Factoid Junkie Choutia:

Let me shove this one up your ugly skinny @ss from the conservative of the conservative magazine of modern capitalism. And don`t you miss the last line even if you skinny @ss goes to sleep by this sugar cane being shoved up through it.

---

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5603449
Nuclear proliferation

Dr Strangedeal
Mar 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Congress should veto George Bush`s nuclear agreement with India

TEN years from now, will George Bush`s determination to rewrite nuclear rules for preventing the bomb`s spread be judged to have been courageously right or dangerously wrong? In striking his deal with India, allowing it to import nuclear fuel and technology despite its weapons-building, Mr Bush has not for the first time seemed readier to favour a friend than to stick to a principle. He is gambling that the future benefits of accepting a rising India in all but name as a member of the nuclear club will outweigh the shock to the global anti-proliferation regime, already under severe strain from the nuclear dealings of North Korea and Iran. His gamble is a dangerous one. Meanwhile, in his rush to accommodate India, Mr Bush is missing a chance to win wider nuclear restraint in one of the world`s tougher neighbourhoods.

New thinking is needed in the anti-proliferation game. North Korea has broken every rule of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and boasts proudly of its bomb. Iran claims to have no use for one, yet demands the “right” to pursue dangerous nuclear fuel-making technologies—as others may do in future unless creative solutions are found to deflect them—that could be abused for weapons-making. This week America and others were insisting at the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran not be allowed to bend the anti-nuclear rules out of shape to further what are assumed to be its weapons ambitions (see article). So why does Mr Bush propose doing just that for already nuclear-armed India?

Not just old thinking
You have to deal with the world as it is, comes the reply. India needs to import nuclear fuel and technology, hitherto denied it by a combination of the NPT, the informal rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and by American law, to support its fast-growing energy needs. And India is not Iran or North Korea. They signed the NPT and cheated. Like Pakistan and Israel, India never joined the treaty and its weapons-making breaks no laws. India is also a responsible democracy; it does not support terrorist groups or threaten to wipe neighbours off the map, as Iran did recently with Israel. Meanwhile, in return for America`s bending the rules of nuclear trade, India will put more civilian nuclear reactors under international safeguards, and stiffen its anti-proliferation resolve.

Leave aside whether nuclear power best serves Indians` needs—that is India`s choice, made knowing the anti-nuclear rules it was up against. And while India`s nukes broke no laws, in practice it got its start in the weapons business, rather as North Korea and Iran did, by misusing technologies and materials provided for civilian purposes. Mr Bush is nonetheless right that no one expects India to give up its weapons now.

But it is one thing to have as broad and close a friendship with a nuclear India as the anti-nuclear rules allow. That is already in both countries` interests. It is quite another to knock aside the rules for India`s sake. To be sure, Mr Bush is not proposing that other nuclear dabblers be given a welcome if they are persistent enough to succeed—though that will be the message Iran prefers to hear this week. Rather, he wants democratic, friendly, law-abiding India to be treated as an exception by Congress, which must first amend America`s own laws if the deal is to go through, and by others in the NSG.

The problem here is that India could instead prove the exception that fatally weakens the rules. The devil is both in the deal`s troubling detail, and in its likely knock-on effects.

India may not have signed the NPT, but America has. In doing so, it promised not to help other countries with their nuclear-weapons tinkering. It also pioneered the reinforcing principle that only countries that have all their nuclear facilities under international safeguards (India doesn`t now and won`t in future) should benefit from trade in civilian nuclear technology. If countries were going to sign the NPT and renounce nuclear weapons themselves, they needed assurance that as many others as possible would follow suit. To encourage them, treaty rights—help in enjoying the benefits of civilian nuclear power—were withheld from those that shrugged off or ignored its obligations.

Allowing nuclear trade with India breaks that bargain in a particularly damaging way. The rules had started to bite: India was running short of supplies of uranium for both civilian and military purposes. By allowing it to import nuclear fuel for its civilian reactors, America will be directly easing the bottlenecks in its weapons programme (bizarrely, also agreeing to keep up fuel supplies even if India breaks America`s other anti-proliferation laws, as some of its companies have in the past). Worse, India`s experimental fast-breeder reactor programme, ideally suited to produce plutonium for warheads though previously claimed to be for civilian purposes, is to be exempted from all safeguards. That will allow India in future to produce scores of weapons a year, not just a handful.

Then add insult to injury. Not only is nuclear-armed India being offered all of the civilian benefits available to countries that have accepted the NPT`s anti-nuclear restrictions. It has also accepted few, if any, of the real obligations of the five official nuclear powers recognised by the treaty, America, Russia, China, Britain and France. All at least signed the treaty banning all nuclear tests; India declined. All have ended the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons purposes (only China has yet to say so publicly); India flatly refused America`s request to do likewise.

A cascade of problems
Rule-bending for India is bound to encourage some other countries to rethink their nuclear options too. But less damage might have been done if the non-proliferation gains had been real ones. In particular, India should have been pressed to stop making fissile material as a condition of any bargain. Pakistan, already signalling interest, could have joined such a moratorium. With China—India`s preferred measure of its nuclear prowess—having stopped producing the stuff too, there was a good opportunity to try to spin a wider web of restraint.

Both South Asia and East Asia urgently need to explore such ambitious confidence-building measures to take the sting out of dangerous regional rivalries. This one could have acted as a catalyst in the Middle East too. Israel in the past has had a stronger claim than most for its deterrent, surrounded for much of its short history by large neighbours aiming to drive it in to the sea. Yet its nuclear edge is fast eroding. With an American nudge, shutting down its Dimona reactor (it no longer needs its plutonium) could spark new thinking about a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free Middle East that could someday help finesse the Iran problem too.

Instead of a virtuous anti-nuclear cycle, there is now more likely to be a vicious nuclear one. China can be expected to insist on doing for proliferation-prone Pakistan what America wants to do for India, adding to a regional arms race that has led to a cascade of proliferation in the past. Giving India a freer ride is also likely to embolden Iran and North Korea in their defiance, with potential repercussions for the security of all their neighbours, from Saudi Arabia and Egypt to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

No one doubts that the world`s richest democracy and its largest one have lots to offer each other as friends and partners. But assisting India`s nuclear weapons ambitions ought not to be in Mr Bush`s gift. When Congress is asked to change America`s anti-proliferation laws, it should say no.

Bipolar factoid junkie choutia:

You should cut & paste what ``The Economist`` has written as its main editorial, wherein it rejected G.W. Bush`s deal with India on Nuclear Energy.

Immigration Bill will be a great bill to get rid of the hindoo shenanigans. Hindoos who have been robbing Americans jobs and wealth are no different than the illegals. Hindoos are sending money through their temples and themselves, and are no different than the Pakistani jihadis. Hindoos have brought their holy and their diwalis, and their saris and their language, and are no different than the illegals spanish people. Hindoos have come here illegally and there is human smuggling, and they are no different than latin american or the chinese illegals.

You must read Gangster Capitalism (or maybe masadi should read this new book) and understand how the MNCs are destroying the social fabric of America. American people has always been smarter than the liars, the tricksters and the promoters of fraud such as the Citigroup, such as Boeing, such as Dupont, etc.

BTW....Boeing shares have gone up and we are making money.

Yet, we would love to kick hindoos` @ss. And that is the extent of my anti-MNCs rhetoric. And every single vote helps. I am busy working the circuit amongst my Republican friends, and insha-allah they will see the light, and will pass the toughest form of Immigration Bill. I just hope the Pakistani administration would support the anti-MNC forces (but I doubt it, because the paindoos in Islamabad are themselves aligned with the corrupt IMF and the corrupt World Bank).

But, I am not loosing my faith in the American people. I would just be announcing my support for Hillary Clinton, if she comes out against the Nuclear Deal with India. And boy, all my friends will be totally surprised that I am supporting a Democrat.

I would do all the necessary political activity to destroy the shenanigans of Hindoos in the US. The Hindoos are destroying the fabric of American society, by stealing and robbing American jobs, American wealth, and American generosity. They are taking money thorugh money laudering schemes to India, where they kill muslims, where they kill christians, and where they kill dalits.

And Americans have nothing to do with it. Whether MNC gets it or not is irrelevant, but I gurantee you American people do get it.

Bipolar factoid junkie choutia:

Here is where boys like you will be seperated from adults. You will be completely exposed in the upcoming immigration bill. Your RSS support will be completely destroyed.

As my leader G.W.Bush has rightfully said ``Bring it on``.

And your neauseating cut & paste rhetoric will be further controlled on this Chowk, because you have no legs to stand on. You and your ilk hate the west and your shenanigans will be seen by others. Let all the Indians (2 million or so of them), come out and support this bill as I have done in my dealing with others, and in my writing on this Chowk, and in my rhetoric.

Let us see your hindoos` true love for your adopted homeland, because you can`t. And I gaurantee you that most Zoroastrians support this bill (those whom you call inbred retards) know how to support their adopted homeland, and hindoos can`t. Hindoos are as evil as the jihadis that you rightfully despise.

And no matter how much deflectionary tactics you use, we will manage the conversation and postings on this chowk. And that is a promise.

tahmed writes <<< So, it logically follows from the above that in your view of the world, the ``embattled farmer`` who fought and beat the King`s men is responsible for ``confining the world to extreme poverty``!!

You are beyond help >>>

No it does not. What is logically revealed is that you are lost in another era, long before the US assumed global hegemony and its elite became the power elite. Also the happy images you are conjuring of the US elite of old do not hold out in face of massacres and genocide of the Native Americans as well as the Atlantic slave trade. Your ``farmer`` as elite is overwhelmed by evil, which you conveniently overlook. People on here, whether they agree with my ideas or not can tell who the ``pea brain`` is. Lies, deception and distraction that is your mentality, even as you tout the Quran. Hypocrite.

#143 by behram1 on March 11, 2006 1:32pm PT

Shouldn`t you be practising eating with your hands bound for your upcoming deportation flight? and shouldn`t you be out shopping for adult diapers for the deportation flight? I heard the federal agent accompanying you will only allow you a limit number of bathroom visits..


And that is what should be debated in the true house of the people of the United States, which I am sure will not be.


The Congress and the American people don`t care about your wishful thinking?!!? Damn..how could they?

In the upcoming immigration bill battle, one more time, and as usual those from Hindooland will get confused. These selfish people will not support the well being of their adopted country. They will side with the forces that want to send money home. They will side with those who bring their own culture in their adopted country. They will side with those who bring their own religion and traditions in their adopted country. They will side with those who bring their language to this country. I am not talking about illegal immigrants from Latin America. I am not talking about those from the muslim world who want to change the constitution of this country to the sharia laws. I am actually talking about hindoos who have come here legally and who enjoy the maximum love and protection given by the generous people of the United States.

And these Hindoos are from those who rob this country of its wealth (over $2B per year, as stated by their stammerer Prime Minister Manmohan Singh). And these Hindoos are from those who bring their own religion and traditions to this country. And these Hindoos are from those who bring their own language to this country.

And these Hindoos steal and take away American jobs away to their own country.

And that is what should be debated in the true house of the people of the United States, which I am sure will not be.

MNCs are in overtime work proving their worthless charter to the American people. Their mantra of how being globalized economy is good for Americans. To which I just say NO....Indians have never been good to anybody, even their own mothers.

Let us all work hard to get this anti-immigration bill passed and make sure that no loop hole is left for those ugly Indians to squeeze in one more time.

Power to the people of the US.

---

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/24/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm
Does anyone out there believe in globalization?
The dispute over whether a Dubai company should be able to operate U.S. ports is only the tip of the (xenophobic) iceberg.
By Cait Murphy, FORTUNE assistant managing editor
February 27, 2006: 11:17 AM EST


NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - The dispute over whether Dubai Ports should be able to buy a British company that operates several U.S. ports may be about national security; the rights of Congress; and the quality of decision-making about foreign investment, as the many critics of the deal say it is. But it is sure looking like a xenophobic catfight, too.

Consider the remarks of Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) who told CBS News, ``We have to have American companies running our own ports.`` The thing is, lots of U.S. ports are run by foreign companies, including many of those in California, including the ones under dispute. If the Boxers in Congress have their way -- and she is not alone -- foreign operators of U.S. ports will be forced to sell up.

Okay, it probably won`t go that far. Maybe Congress will stop short, about where Republican Senator Bill Frist wants, and give itself the right to scrutinize all business deals involving foreign companies. Just how long do you think it would take Congress to go from vetting deals for national security to defining national security as, say, making cotton underwear in South Carolina? It was not that long ago that the infinitely elastic security card was played to pressure China-owned CNOOC away from buying Unocal.

Moving on to Europe, there is Jacques Chirac, deciding that Mittal Steel`s hostile $22.1 billion bid for Luxembourg-based Arcelor is not in the latter`s interest -- a matter that is surely for its shareholders to decide. Mittal, whose roots are in Calcutta and whose management is largely Indian, is a global company based in the Netherlands.

Chirac was not worried when Mittal bought up post-communist rustbuckets in places like Poland and Kazakstan, but Luxembourg is too close for comfort. The bid is ``Purely financial in character,`` sniffed Chirac, ``devoid of all industrial intents.``

Meanwhile, the EU is set to introduce anti-dumping duties against shoes made in Vietnam. The decision harks back to the ``bra wars`` of last summer, when the EU enacted special provisions to limit the import of Chinese textiles.

It`s easy to suspect racism, and certainly that charge did not take long to surface. But it`s wrong and misses the larger point: These incidents are the result of fear -- not of a different skin color, but of the future.

When the U.S. and Europe were creating the post-war global economic architecture, they were the only economic powers that really mattered. It was not always smooth sailing, but there was a degree of comfort and familiarity; they worked things out. Eventually, other countries wanted to get in. Japan was the first, and today`s disputes might sound similar to the kinds of ugly grunts that accompanied the emergence of that country in the 70s and 80s.

Now more countries are knocking on the door. That`s the ultimate validation of the ideas that led to the West`s own post-war boom, and an absolutely good thing. Dubai may be the most dynamic, diversified, open, and entrepreneurial part of the Arab world -- and in large part because of that, the closest thing the West has to a buddy there. Economic openness in China and Vietnam has not only helped to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but has led to a larger degree of personal freedom than either place has known since their respective Communists took over.

The term ``anti-globalization`` used to call up images of scruffy college kids, professional activists who considered capitalism a neo-imperialist plot, and cynical autocrats who wanted to protect their highly-feathered nests. But look around the world now, and the most consequential resistance to globalization is coming from those places that have benefited most from it. If you were sitting in Mumbai, you might suspect that the rich world was more comfortable with an India that was importing aid workers than one that is exporting world-class products.

Europe and America wrote the book on globalization. The fact that others have finally figured it out is no reason to tear it up.

---

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/10/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm
What will the Dubai debacle cost us?
Now the deal is done, it`s time for American companies to face the economic consequences of politicians` public statements.
By Nelson D. Schwartz, FORTUNE Europe editor
March 10, 2006: 10:50 AM EST


NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - So the Dubai ports deal is done, a United Arab Emirates-owned company has backed down, and CNN anchor (and deal opponent) Lou Dobbs is going to have to find something else to talk about. But the after-effects are likely to be felt in boardrooms across America as well as on Capitol Hill and in Arab capitals from Riyadh to Bahrain and Cairo.

That`s because while the decision Thursday by Dubai-based DP World to complete its takeover of the U.K.`s P&O while transferring or selling the U.S. operations may placate opponents on Capitol Hill, it`s likely to worry major American exporters such as Boeing (Research), GE (Research) and other companies that see growing opportunity in the oil and money-rich Gulf.

``Our members are very concerned about what the failure of this deal means,`` says Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a Washington trade association that represents large U.S. multi-nationals. ``They haven`t wanted to be visible but they`re very concerned about the signals the U.S. is sending out.``

Indeed, The Hill, a Washington newspaper that covers Congress, reported that Dubai`s royal family is ``furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.``

And with Boeing hoping to land a major order for its new 787 Dreamliner with Dubai-based airline Emirates down the road, the stakes are high. Elsewhere in the region, the UAE`s Etihad Airways has already ordered more than $1 billion worth of 777s, and Egyptair and Royal Jordanian are longtime Boeing buyers.

``These are important customers for us in an important, growing market,`` says Boeing spokesman John Dern. ``We are with these customers all the time. We haven`t seen any impact at this point, and have no indication there will be an impact.`` Dern wouldn`t say whether Boeing execs have specifically discussed the ports controversy with potential customers, but he notes that ``we`re certainly monitoring the situation.``

Don`t expect news of any public threats or cancelled orders to come from the Gulf in the coming days or weeks. ``That`s out of character for the Gulf states,`` says Reinsch. ``It`s more likely they`ll just act, and suddenly a deal is off.``

Reinsch adds he that the doesn`t think opponents of the deal on Capitol Hill gave much thought to the possibility that blocking the deal could boomerang and end up hurting U.S. companies. ``It`s the law of unintended consequences,`` he says.

The biggest loser in the short-term, according to Reinsch, is the Bush administration, which has been trying to create a Middle East free trade zone modeled on NAFTA that would extend trade privileges with the United States to countries from North Africa all the way to Iraq by 2013.

Jordan and Morocco have already signed deals with the United States, and Bahrain and Oman are in the final stages of negotiations. ``These countries are not without resources and they can`t help but react negatively when they`re thrust into this.``

Now that DP World has given up, the action will likely move behind closed doors, far away from the media attention that made the controversy such a hot topic, especially on the cable gab-fests (including those on CNN, the parent of CNNMoney.com).

Companies like Boeing are likely to work their contacts in the region, and try to patch things up. And former Bush administration economist and American Enterprise Institute Fellow Phillip Swagel says the Gulf states should send emissaries to meet with outspoken port deal opponents like New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and explain to them the economic power of the Gulf region.

Not a bad idea but whether Schumer, Clinton and other politicians understand the economic consequences of their public statements, rather than the political benefits, is another matter.

---

Oops! Where was India? It did not even got mentioned. Awh! Schucks and all this reading was such a terrible waste of everybodies time. It just goes to show that Indian code-coolies are not worth anybodies time because these Indians are still stuck in between white men`s legs, sucking hard on those sugar canes.

#137 by behram1

[What are we supposed to do? Go back to farming? ]

No. Go back to Pakiland. Americans don`t want immigrants. Especially from Pakiland.

Re: # 140 Ramanujan on March 11, 2006 8:38am PT

{Americans don`t want immigrants.} Here you are correct. You have finally seen the light. Thank you. Now join the fight to get the most toughest immigration bill passed for Americans to get rid of foreigners (those damn brownies who are having difficulty is sucking the American sugar canes)

BTW.... did you know that Brazil produces the largest amount of sugar canes which are now very expensive, because all of it is being used to shove up into the hindoos in their hindooland. Sugar canes produce ethanol fuel for energy which the hindoos need it....and all this time I was promoting why it is a good idea to shove sugar cane with khajoor injection up a squatting hindoo`s @ss. That goes to prove how far sighted I have always been.

#135 dont expect me to spend time reading your lengthy posts, given the demonstration of your pea-brained capacity to think clearly (see #138 below).

masadi #134
I wrote ``Let me put just one of many ways in which I can substantiate this statement for you to consider: The US elite is the ``embattled farmer who fired the shot heard around the world`` - and brought the King`s men to their knees after some years of bitter struggle for freedom. General Cornwallis surrendered to this US elite at Yorktown, while his King`s men played the tune of ``The World Turned Upside Down``.``

Your response to the above: ``The US elite are the one who have confined the world to extreme poverty while concentrating wealth among the few. ``

So, it logically follows from the above that in your view of the world, the ``embattled farmer`` who fought and beat the King`s men is responsible for ``confining the world to extreme poverty``!!

You are beyond help.

Here`s some stuff for Mantolives, Tahmed, Behram (yes, Behram!), HP and all other well wishers of India to enjoy:

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerindex?id=1674437

And if you click on the ``INTERNATIONAL`` bar on the right, you`ll see another one in the same series called ``India: America`s Switchboard ``.

Watch and weep!

:)