Friday, March 29, 2024
02:11 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > CSS Optional subjects > Group I > International Relations

International Relations Notes on IR

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #21  
Old Monday, July 04, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default The Role of Hitler in the New World Order...

The Role of Hitler in the New World Order
By
Peter Myers

Since the proclamation of the New World Order by George Bush, nations and political movements both Left and Right have been struggling in vain to free themselves from it. Now even Japan, which itself was building a covert empire only a decade ago, is vulnerable to having its banking system colonised by the New York establishment. If that happens, the Japanese people will lose control of the savings they have accumulated in the postwar period. And yet the coloniser, the United States, has an official net foreign debt in excess of one trillion dollars! But as Mao said, power resides in the gun.

The New World Order media constantly present us with graphic reminders of the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Imperial Japan, Mao's Red Guards, the Inquisition and the Conquistadores, to make the point "THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE". We are constantly shown that the independence of nation-states leads to war, barbarism, bloodshed, devastation and extermination. Good intentions degenerate into Stalinism and Nazism. Religious power, which sustained civilisations from Ancient Egypt on, degenerates into Crusades, Inquisitions, Intifadas, and State Shintoism. We cannot trust ourselves, we cannot trust majority rule, we can only trust the ruling elite. Any "alternative model" - the Soviet, the Japanese, the German etc. - must be crushed, preferably without a shot being fired, merely through propaganda and the undermining of its banking system.

Within nation-states, the majority is mentally disarmed through the promotion of minorities as persecuted victims. Women, children, gays, Jews, blacks, tribal peoples, trees, animals. Trees and animals participate indirectly, through their interest groups. Human Rights means Minority Rights. Each minority is maintained in a state of fear of the majority, and mobilised against it. With jobs scarce and insecure, the unemployed must compete for them along racial lines, in affirmative action categories. By these means, the majority loses its moral legitimacy, and is dissolved into the global empire.

Pariah countries which reject the empire (Cuba, Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Burma) are subjected to a barrage of propaganda about Human Rights Abuses (the accuser, in effect, being the NWO, hiding its own imperial designs), and economically isolated through sanctions preventing trade, travel, and the acquisition of modern technology. Any country which leaves the empire will face a demand for the repayment of its foreign debt, as well as being told to fend for itself, if invaded, without help from the empire.

In this scheme of things, one figure looms above all others: Adolf Hitler. Scarcely a fortnight goes by without some TV channel featuring a major documentary about him and his regime. An opponent of the NWO may not admire Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao or Tojo or Cortes or Pizarro, much less all of them. But the message of NWO propaganda is that any alternative to the NWO will develop along these lines. As the Chief Villain, Hitler stands for all of these. He is the Archetype of Evil, against which the NWO must look Good. In terms of George Orwell's scenario in 1984, Hitler is the new Goldstein. Any opponent of the NWO is thus forced to take a stand on Hitler. The media message, through its constant focus on Hitler, is that opposing the NWO is tantamount to supporting Hitler. Conversely, to oppose Hitler is, by implication, to support the NWO.

How can opponents of the NWO escape from this dilemna? Some attempt to do it by exonerating Hitler. Others, like myself, admit Hitler's sins but focus on the use to which they are put, as a shield behind which the NWO can justify itself. To elaborate, Hitler's sins include: planning and launching major wars; opposition to interracial marriage; and the persecution of all Jews on account of the activities of some.

Hitler would not have had the level of support he did, if he had not also done some beneficial things. But the beneficial things he did were good only for those he identified as his own people. In the same way, National System Economics, that based on the ideas of Frederick List and Alexander Hamilton, benefits one's own country but turns others into colonies. I was amazed when during a conversation with a Jewish man who had survived the Belsen concentration camp, he said, "Hitler did a lot of good for his people; Mussolini did a lot of good for his people; Mussolini's only mistake was to join with Hitler". These words stunned me, but they did not turn me into an admirer of Hitler - I have never been one.

Perhaps we can see the two sides of Hitler best by looking at the colonisation of Australia by European settlers. These days we can no longer ignore the fact of invasion or its cruelty. Even the "Rule of Law" - the British Legal System - came here in an illegal way. It is a graphic illustration that "Right" is founded upon "Might", as it was in the beginning of civilisation, when Upper Egypt conquered Lower Egypt to begin the dynasties of Ancient Egypt.

Yet even though the sins of the white colonists of Australia are obvious, their critics stand upon the edifice they built: the roads, bridges, cities, universities, farms, airports, communications systems etc. It is appropriate to feel ambiguous about those invaders: appalled at their violence, and yet admiring of their accomplishments. In this context, one can understand how Germans might feel about Hitler, how Russians might look back on the USSR, and even how Yitzhak Rabin might have felt about Israel in his latter years. Ambiguity is a more appropriate feeling here, than either adulation or contempt.

Since the fall of the USSR, the United States has been hailed as the last bastion of the Enlightenment project of drawing all the world into a universal civilisation. But it is an awkward empire, because its foundation date, 1776, marks for most Americans not the start of empire, but withdrawal from empire: July 4 is called Independence Day.

During a time of pessimism a few years ago, Kevin Phillips' best-selling book Arrogant Capital depicted the United States as the new but declining Roman Empire. The United States' current account deficit, like Australia's, may be a sign of decline, but it is also a way of extending the empire to include the new provinces of Japan, China, Thailand etc, allowing them to become rich by selling their goods into the U.S., Australia etc, in compensation for the loss of independence. They can't have it both ways.

"America" may be the new Rome, but Rome's conquest was two-way. The legions marched outwards, turning independent countries into provinces: the ancient and original civilisation of Egypt ended its life as a province of Rome. Yet the religions of the provinces marched into Rome: Isis from Egypt, Ishtar from Iraq, Mithra from Persia, Yahweh from Jerusalem. Polytheism was the Multiculturalism of the day. Each temple represented an aspect of the Truth; they were seen as compatible, not exclusive.

An apologia for the NWO was sketched by H.G. Wells in his book The Open Conspiracy, of which the main edition was published in 1933, the year Hitler attained power. Wells obviously had not envisaged the emergence of Hitler, yet even at that time, 65 years ago, a sort of NWO was in place, although much less developed than today. It is a sober reminder that however solid the edifice of empire appears today, it may have cracks that reveal themselves in years to come, and the oppression we complain about today may, in the light of future wars, look like "the good old days". Should we therefore feel not opposition to the NWO but ambiguity, and aim to improve it rather than destroy it?

_______________________________________________
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
fuzzyrants (Monday, May 06, 2013), MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
  #22  
Old Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Why the US won't leave Afghanistan...

Why the US won't leave Afghanistan
By
Pepe Escobar


Surge, bribe and run? Or surge, bribe and stay? How US military bases and the energy war play out in Afghanistan.

Among multiple layers of deception and newspeak, the official Washington spin on the strategic quagmire in Afghanistan simply does not hold.

No more than "50-75 'al-Qaeda types' in Afghanistan", according to the CIA, have been responsible for draining the US government by no less than US $10 billion a month, or $120 billion a year.

At the same time, outgoing US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been adamant that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is "premature". The Pentagon wants the White House to "hold off on ending the Afghanistan troop surge until the fall of 2012."

That of course shadows the fact that even if there were a full draw down, the final result would be the same number of US troops before the Obama administration-ordered AfPak surge.

And even if there is some sort of draw down, it will mostly impact troops in supporting roles - which can be easily replaced by "private contractors" (euphemism for mercenaries). There are already over 100,000 "private contractors" in Afghanistan.

It's raining trillions


A recent, detailed study by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University revealed that the war on terror has cost the US economy, so far, from $3.7 trillion (the most conservative estimate) to $4.4 trillion (the moderate estimate). Then there are interest payments on these costs - another $1 trillion.

That makes the total cost of the war on terror to be, at least, a staggering $5.4 trillion. And that does not include, as the report mentions, "additional macroeconomic consequences of war spending", or a promised (and undelivered) $5.3 billion reconstruction aid for Afghanistan.

Who's profiting from this bonanza? That's easy - US military contractors and a global banking/financial elite.

The notion that the US government would spend $10 billion a month just to chase a few "al-Qaeda types" in the Hindu Kush is nonsense.

The Pentagon itself has dismissed the notion - insisting that just capturing and killing Osama bin Laden does not change the equation; the Taliban are still a threat.

In numerous occasions Taliban leader Mullah Omar himself has characterised his struggle as a "nationalist movement". Apart from the historical record showing that Washington always fears and fights nationalist movements, Omar's comment also shows that the Taliban strategy has nothing to do with al-Qaeda's aim of establishing a Caliphate via global jihad.

So al-Qaeda is not the major enemy - not anymore, nor has it been for quite some time now. This is a war between a superpower and a fierce, nationalist, predominantly Pashtun movement - of which the Taliban are a major strand; regardless of their medieval ways, they are fighting a foreign occupation and doing what they can to undermine a puppet regime (Hamid Karzai's).

Look at my bankruptcy model

In the famous November 1, 2004 video that played a crucial part in assuring the reelection of George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden - or a clone of Osama bin Laden - once again expanded on how the "mujahedeen bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat."

That's the exact same strategy al-Qaeda has deployed against the US; according to Bin Laden at the time, "all that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the farthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note, other than some benefits to their private companies."

The record since 9/11 shows that's exactly what's happening. The war on terror has totally depleted the US treasury - to the point that the White House and Congress are now immersed in a titanic battle over a $4 trillion debt ceiling.

What is never mentioned is that these trillions of dollars were ruthlessly subtracted from the wellbeing of average Americans - smashing the carefully constructed myth of the American dream.

So what's the endgame for these trillions of dollars?

The Pentagon's Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine implies a global network of military bases - with particular importance to those surrounding, bordering and keeping in check key competitors Russia and China.

This superpower projection - of which Afghanistan was, and remains, a key node, in the intersection of South and Central Asia - led, and may still lead, to other wars in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

The network of US military bases in the Pentagon-coined "arc of instability" that stretches from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf and South/Central Asia is a key reason for remaining in Afghanistan forever.

But it's not the only reason.

Surge, bribe and stay

It all comes back, once again, to Pipelineistan - and one of its outstanding chimeras; the Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline, also known once as the Trans-Afghan Pipeline, which might one day become TAPI if India decides to be on board.

The US corporate media simply refuses to cover what is one of the most important stories of the early 21st century.

Washington has badly wanted TAP since the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration was negotiating with the Taliban; the talks broke down because of transit fees, even before 9/11, when the Bush administration decided to change the rhetoric from "a carpet of gold" to "a carpet of bombs".

TAP is a classic Pipelineistan gambit; the US supporting the flow of gas from Central Asia to global markets, bypassing both Iran and Russia. If it ever gets built, it will cost over $10 billion.

It needs a totally pacified Afghanistan - still another chimera - and a Pakistani government totally implicated in Afghanistan's security, still a no-no as long as Islamabad's policy is to have Afghanistan as its "strategic depth", a vassal state, in a long-term confrontation mindset against India.

It's no surprise the Pentagon and the Pakistani Army enjoy such a close working relationship. Both Washington and Islamabad regard Pashtun nationalism as an existential threat.

The 2,500-kilometer-long, porous, disputed border with Afghanistan is at the core of Pakistan's interference in its neighbour's affairs.

Washington is getting desperate because it knows the Pakistani military will always support the Taliban as much as they support hardcore Islamist groups fighting India. Washington also knows Pakistan's Afghan policy implies containing India's influence in Afghanistan at all costs.

Just ask General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's army chief - and a Pentagon darling to boot; he always says his army is India-centric, and, therefore, entitled to "strategic depth" in Afghanistan.

It's mind-boggling that 10 years and $5.4 trillion dollars later, the situation is exactly the same. Washington still badly wants "its" pipeline - which will in fact be a winning game mostly for commodity traders, global finance majors and Western energy giants.

From the standpoint of these elites, the ideal endgame scenario is global Robocop NATO - helped by hundreds of thousands of mercenaries - "protecting" TAP (or TAPI) while taking a 24/7 peek on what's going on in neighbours Russia and China.

Sharp wits in India have described Washington's tortuous moves in Afghanistan as "surge, bribe and run". It's rather "surge, bribe and stay". This whole saga might have been accomplished without a superpower bankrupting itself, and without immense, atrocious, sustained loss of life, but hey - nobody's perfect.

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for the Asia Times. His latest book is Obama Does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.


__________________________________________________ ___
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
engraj (Monday, January 14, 2013), MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
  #23  
Old Friday, July 15, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default NSG Waiver to India...

NSG Waiver to India; Implications for Pakistan
By
Anum Fayyaz

Established in 1975, in response to 1974 the Indian nuclear explosion Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is comprised of 45 nuclear supplier states. It aims at preventing nuclear exports for commercial and peaceful purposes from being used to make nuclear weapons. NSG members are expected to forego nuclear trade with governments that do not subject themselves to international measures and inspections designed to provide confidence that their nuclear imports are not used to develop nuclear arms.

The NSG has two sets of Guidelines listing the specific nuclear materials, equipment, and technologies that are subject to export control.

List-I (INFCIRC/254, Part-I) deals governs the export of items that are especially designed or prepared for nuclear use e.g. nuclear material, nuclear reactors and equipment therefore; non-nuclear material for reactors, plant and equipment for the reprocessing, enrichment and conversion of nuclear material and for fuel fabrication and heavy water production; and technology associated with each of these items. List-II (INFCIRC/254, Part-II) governs the export of nuclear related dual-use items and technologies, that is, items that can make a major contribution to an unsafeguarded nuclear fuel cycle or nuclear explosive activity, but which have non-nuclear uses as well, for example in industry.

The NSG Guidelines aim to ensure that nuclear trade for peaceful purposes does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices which would not hinder international trade and cooperation in the nuclear field. The NSG Guidelines facilitate the development of trade in this area by providing the means whereby obligations to facilitate peaceful nuclear cooperation can be implemented in a manner consistent with international nuclear non-proliferation norms.

In July 2005, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India. The NSG adopted a resolution by consensus to lift its embargo on nuclear commerce with India thus allowing her nuclear trade with NSG members.

This decision damaged the global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and also weakened the international safeguards system because it may lead to diversion of India’s indigenously-produced fissile materials to military programmes, as fuel for its civilian reactors would be imported. There is no consensus even on the penalties to be imposed on India if it tests its technology. But most importantly, it creates a new norm of discrimination that effectively kills the spirit of nonproliferation.

This NSG waiver actually is principal violation of article IV and VI of NPT which states that the principal of non-discrimination should be applied to all states and to pursue negotiations towards general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The “discriminatory waiver” provided to India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group will “further accentuate the asymmetry in fissile material stockpiles in the region to the detriment of Pakistan’s security interests”.

Furthermore, US support for India’s membership of four multilateral export control regimes, namely MTCR, Wassanaar Arrangement, Australia Group and Zangger Committee had reinforced a pattern of “selective behavior” that undermined the international non-proliferation regime.

India got many advantages through this agreement, i.e. the agreement opens the door for cooperation in civil nuclear energy with other countries. The Agreement places India in a special category as a “State possessing advanced nuclear technology”, like the United States, with both parties “having the same benefits and advantages”. The Agreement provides for full civil nuclear energy cooperation covering nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment and reprocessing. It also provides for nuclear trade; transfer of nuclear material, equipment, components, and related technologies and for cooperation in nuclear fuel cycle activities. The Agreement also provides for the development of a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors. The application of IAEA safeguards is only to the transferred material and equipment. There is no provision that mandates scrutiny of their nuclear weapons programme or any unsafeguarded nuclear facility.

Pakistan’s concerns behind such developments are that there is no legally binding equipment regarding India’s fissile material production. The agreement is not facility specific which India is entering now and that the non-proliferation is actually based on trade.

The NSG waiver affects the global non-proliferation regime in general and Pakistan in particular. The scope of the treaty offers India the opportunity to further augment strategic reserves of stockpiles, and thus widen its disparity with Pakistan. India’s agreements with many countries – following the NSG waiver – will assure supply and enable it to process reactor-grade material. It would create an asymmetry in the fissile material stockpile between both the countries which would widen the disparity between India and Pakistan and would negatively impact the deterrence stability in South Asia.

The NSG waiver in favor of India, will boost India’s fissile material production and enhance its capacity to produce more sophisticated nuclear weapons, missiles and advanced conventional weapons which highlight the discriminatory trends in the global community that on one hand India is being aided in its buildup of fissile material and on the other hand, Pakistan is being pressurized at the international fora. These biased policies would negatively impact Pakistan.

These developments would lead to an arms race in triangular equation in the region affecting Pakistan, India and China. Pakistan’s firm position argues for the future of the non- proliferation agenda. Central to the debate is the question of verification and principle of non-discrimination as stated in the Shannon Mandate that a “non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively veri?able” treaty should be negotiated.

Pakistan has a small nuclear power program, with 725 MWe capacity, but plans to increase this substantially. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons capabilities of has arisen independently of the civil nuclear fuel cycle, using indigenous uranium. Currently there are three Operating Nuclear Power Reactors in Pakistan, which includes KANUUP which is Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) and Chashma 1 and Chashma 2 which are Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). In Pakistan, nuclear power makes a small contribution to total energy production and requirements, supplying only 2.34% of the country’s electricity.

Pakistan has long demanded that any treaty that bans the production of fissile material must address future production and existing disparities in stocks, in which Pakistan has issues with India.

We must also remain firm on our stance on Fissile Material Treaty (FMT) because otherwise Pakistan’s national interests would be at stake.

This is the time to improve the international security environment and create a climate of trust and promote the non-discriminatory attitude and address the security and defense issues of each country involved. And in such a manner, the non-nuclear weapon states can also be formally brought into the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and in close cooperation with NPT state parties.

Coming to the end, I would just conclude on the thought that nuclear energy is a vital economic security need of the country and that the international community, must recognize Pakistan as a nuclear power and must be given equal rights and responsibilities in this regard because “Pakistan is capable of providing nuclear fuel cycle services, under the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) safeguards.

__________________________________________________ ____
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
engraj (Monday, January 14, 2013), MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
  #24  
Old Saturday, July 16, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Encircling Russia, Targeting China...

Encircling Russia, Targeting China, NATO’S True Role in US Grand Strategy
By
Diana Johnstone

In November 19 and 20, NATO leaders meet in Lisbon for what is billed as a summit on “NATO’s Strategic Concept”. Among topics of discussion will be an array of scary “threats”, from cyberwar to climate change, as well as nice protective things like nuclear weapons and a high tech Maginot Line boondoggle supposed to stop enemy missiles in mid-air.

The NATO leaders will be unable to avoid talking about the war in Afghanistan, that endless crusade that unites the civilized world against the elusive Old Man of the Mountain, Hassan i Sabah, eleventh century chief of the Assassins in his latest reincarnation as Osama bin Laden. There will no doubt be much talk of “our shared values”.

Most of what they will discuss is fiction with a price tag.

The one thing missing from the Strategic Concept summit agenda is a serious discussion of strategy.

This is partly because NATO as such has no strategy, and cannot have its own strategy. NATO is in reality an instrument of United States strategy. Its only operative Strategic Concept is the one put into practice by the United States. But even that is an elusive phantom. American leaders seem to prefer striking postures, “showing resolve”, to defining strategies.

One who does presume to define strategy is Zbigniew Brzezinski, godfather of the Afghan Mujahidin back when they could be used to destroy the Soviet Union. Brzezinski was not shy about bluntly stating the strategic objective of U.S. policy in his 1993 book The Grand Chessboard: “American primacy”. As for NATO, he described it as one of the institutions serving to perpetuate American hegemony, “making the United States a key participant even in intra-European affairs.” In its “global web of specialized institutions”, which of course includes NATO, the United States exercises power through “continuous bargaining, dialogue, diffusion, and quest for formal consensus, even though that power originates ultimately from a single source, namely, Washington, D.C.”

The description perfectly fits the Lisbon “Strategic Concept” conference. Last week, NATO’s Danish secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, announced that “we are pretty close to a consensus”. And this consensus, according to the New York Times, “will probably follow President Barack Obama’s own formulation: to work toward a non-nuclear world while maintaining a nuclear deterrent”.

Wait a minute, does that make sense? No, but it is the stuff of NATO consensus. Peace through war, nuclear disarmament through nuclear armament, and above all, defense of member states by sending expeditionary forces to infuriate the natives of distant lands.

A strategy is not a consensus written by committees.

The American method of “continuous bargaining, dialogue, diffusion, and quest for formal consensus” wears down whatever resistance may occasionally appear. Thus Germany and France initially resisted Georgian membership in NATO, as well as the notorious “missile shield”, both seen as blatant provocations apt to set off a new arms race with Russia and damage fruitful German and French relations with Moscow, for no useful purpose. But the United States does not take no for an answer, and keeps repeating its imperatives until resistance fades. The one recent exception was the French refusal to join the invasion of Iraq, but the angry U.S. reaction scared the conservative French political class into supporting the pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy.

In search of “threats” and “challenges”

The very heart of what passes for a “strategic concept” was first declared and put into operation in the spring of 1999, when NATO defied international law, the United Nations and its own original charter by waging an aggressive war outside its defensive perimeter against Yugoslavia. That transformed NATO from a defensive to an offensive alliance. Ten years later, the godmother of that war, Madeleine Albright, was picked to chair the “group of experts” that spent several months holding seminars, consultations and meetings preparing the Lisbon agenda. Prominent in these gatherings were Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd’s of London, the insurance giant, and the former chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, Jeroen van der Veer. These ruling class figures are not exactly military strategists, but their participation should reassure the international business community that their worldwide interests are being taken into consideration.

Indeed, a catalogue of threats enumerated by Rasmussen in a speech last year seemed to suggest that NATO was working for the insurance industry. NATO, he said, was needed to deal with piracy, cyber security, climate change, extreme weather events such as catastrophic storms and flooding, rising sea levels, large-scale population movement into inhabited areas, sometimes across borders, water shortages, droughts, decreasing food production, global warming, CO2 emissions, the retreat of Arctic ice uncovering hitherto inaccessible resources, fuel efficiency and dependence on foreign sources, etc.

Most of the enumerated threats cannot even remotely be construed as calling for military solutions. Surely no “rogue states” or “outposts of tyranny” or “international terrorists” are responsible for climate change, yet Rasmussen presents them as challenges to NATO.

On the other hand, some of the results of these scenarios, such as population movements caused by rising sea levels or drought, can indeed be seen as potentially causing crises. The ominous aspect of the enumeration is precisely that all such problems are eagerly snatched up by NATO as requiring military solutions.

The main threat to NATO is its own obsolescence. And the search for a “strategic concept” is the search for pretexts to keep it going.

NATO’s Threat to the World

While it searches for threats, NATO itself is a growing threat to the world. The basic threat is its contribution to strengthening the U.S.-led tendency to abandon diplomacy and negotiations in favor of military force. This is seen clearly in Rasmussen’s inclusion of weather phenomena in his list of threats to NATO, when they should, instead, be problems for international diplomacy and negotiations. The growing danger is that Western diplomacy is dying. The United States has set the tone: we are virtuous, we have the power, the rest of the world must obey or else.

Diplomacy is despised as weakness. The State Department has long since ceased to be at the core of U.S. foreign policy. With its vast network of military bases the world over, as well as military attachés in embassies and countless missions to client countries, the Pentagon is incomparably more powerful and influential in the world than the State Department.

Recent Secretaries of State, far from seeking diplomatic alternatives to war, have actually played a leading role in advocating war instead of diplomacy, whether Madeleine Albright in the Balkans or Colin Powell waving fake test tubes in the United Nations Security Council. Policy is defined by the National Security Advisor, various privately-funded think tanks and the Pentagon, with interference from a Congress which itself is composed of politicians eager to obtain military contracts for their constituencies.

NATO is dragging Washington’s European allies down the same path. Just as the Pentagon has replaced the State Department, NATO itself is being used by the United States as a potential substitute for the United Nations. The 1999 “Kosovo war” was a first major step in that direction. Sarkozy’s France, after rejoining the NATO joint command, is gutting the traditionally skilled French foreign service, cutting back on civilian representation throughout the world. The European Union foreign service now being created by Lady Ashton will have no policy and no authority of its own.

Bureaucratic Inertia

Behind its appeals to “common values”, NATO is driven above all by bureaucratic inertia. The alliance itself is an excrescence of the U.S. military-industrial complex. For sixty years, military procurements and Pentagon contracts have been an essential source of industrial research, profits, jobs, Congressional careers, even university funding. The interplay of these varied interests converge to determine an implicit U.S. strategy of world conquest.

An ever-expanding global network of somewhere between 800 and a thousand military bases on foreign soil.

Bilateral military accords with client states which offer training while obliging them to purchase U.S.-made weapons and redesign their armed forces away from national defense toward internal security (i.e. repression) and possible integration into U.S.-led wars of aggression.

Use of these close relationships with local armed forces to influence the domestic politics of weaker states.

Perpetual military exercises with client states, which provide the Pentagon with perfect knowledge of the military potential of client states, integrate them into the U.S. military machine, and sustain a “ready for war” mentality.

Deployment of its network of bases, “allies” and military exercises so as to surround, isolate, intimidate and eventually provoke major nations perceived as potential rivals, notably Russia and China.

The implicit strategy of the United States, as perceived by its actions, is a gradual military conquest to ensure world domination. One original feature of this world conquest project is that, although extremely active, day after day, it is virtually ignored by the vast majority of the population of the conquering nation, as well as by its most closely dominated allies, i.e., the NATO states.

The endless propaganda about “terrorist threats” (the fleas on the elephant) and other diversions keep most Americans totally unaware of what is going on, all the more easily in that Americans are almost uniquely ignorant of the rest of the world and thus totally uninterested. The U.S. may bomb a country off the map before more than a small fraction of Americans know where to find it.

The main task of U.S. strategists, whose careers take them between think tanks, boards of directors, consultancy firms and the government, is to justify this giant mechanism much more than to steer it. To a large extent, it steers itself.

Since the collapse of the “Soviet threat”, policy-makers have settled for invisible or potential threats. U.S. military doctrine has as its aim to move preventively against any potential rival to U.S. world hegemony. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia retains the largest arsenal outside the United States, and China is a rapidly rising economic power. Neither one threatens the United States or Western Europe. On the contrary, both are ready and willing to concentrate on peaceful business.

However, they are increasingly alarmed by the military encirclement and provocative military exercises carried on by the United States on their very doorsteps. The implicit aggressive strategy may be obscure to most Americans, but leaders in the targeted countries are quite certain they understand what it is going on.

The Russia-Iran-Israel Triangle

Currently, the main explicit “enemy” is Iran.

Washington claims that the “missile shield” which it is forcing on its European allies is designed to defend the West from Iran. But the Russians see quite clearly that the missile shield is aimed at themselves. First of all, they understand quite clearly that Iran has no such missiles nor any possible motive for using them against the West. It is perfectly obvious to all informed analysts that even if Iran developed nuclear weapons and missiles, they would be conceived as a deterrent against Israel, the regional nuclear superpower which enjoys a free hand attacking neighboring countries. Israel does not want to lose that freedom to attack, and thus naturally opposes the Iranian deterrent.

Israeli propagandists scream loudly about the threat from Iran, and have worked incessantly to infect NATO with their paranoia.

Israel has even been described as “Global NATO’s 29th member”. Israeli officials have assiduously worked on a receptive Madeleine Albright to make sure that Israeli interests are included in the “Strategic Concept”. During the past five years, Israel and NATO have been taking part in joint naval exercises in the Red Sea and in the Mediterranean, as well as joint ground exercises from Brussels to Ukraine. On October 16, 2006, Israel became the first non-European country to reach a so-called “Individual Cooperation Program” agreement with NATO for cooperation in 27 different areas.

It is worth noting that Israel is the only country outside Europe which the U.S. includes in the area of responsibility of its European Command (rather than the Central Command that covers the rest of the Middle East).

At a NATO-Israel Relations seminar in Herzliya on October 24, 2006, the Israeli foreign minister at the time, Tzipi Livni, declared that “The alliance between NATO and Israel is only natural….Israel and NATO share a common strategic vision. In many ways, Israel is the front line defending our common way of life.”

Not everybody in European countries would consider that Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine reflect “our common way of life”.

This is no doubt one reason why the deepening union between NATO and Israel has not taken the open form of NATO membership. Especially after the savage attack on Gaza, such a move would arouse objections in European countries. Nevertheless, Israel continues to invite itself into NATO, ardently supported, of course, by its faithful followers in the U.S. Congress.

The principal cause of this growing Israel-NATO symbiosis has been identified by Mearsheimer and Walt: the vigorous and powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

Israeli lobbies are also strong in France, Britain and the UK. They have zealously developed the theme of Israel as the “front line” in the defense of “Western values” against militant Islam. The fact that militant Islam is largely a product of that “front line” creates a perfect vicious circle.

Israel’s aggressive stance toward its regional neighbors would be a serious liability for NATO, apt to be dragged into wars of Israel’s choosing which are by no means in the interest of Europe.

However, there is one subtle strategic advantage in the Israeli connection which the United States seems to be using… against Russia.

By subscribing to the hysterical “Iranian threat” theory, the United States can continue to claim with a straight face that the planned missile shield is directed against Iran, not Russia. This cannot be expected to convince the Russians. But it can be used to make their protests sound “paranoid” – at least to the ears of the Western faithful. Dear me, what can they be complaining about when we “reset” our relations with Moscow and invite the Russian president to our “Strategic Concept” happy gathering?

However, the Russians know quite well that:

The missile shield is to be constructed surrounding Russia, which does have missiles, which it keeps for deterrence.

By neutralizing Russian missiles, the United States would free its own hand to attack Russia, knowing that the Russia could not retaliate.

Therefore, whatever is said, the missile shield, if it worked, would serve to facilitate eventual aggression against Russia.

Encircling Russia

The encirclement of Russia continues in the Black Sea, the Baltic and the Arctic circle.

United States officials continue to claim that Ukraine must join NATO.

Just this week, in a New York Times column, Zbigniew’s son Ian J. Brzezinski advised Obama against abandoning the “vision” of a “whole, free and secure” Europe including “eventual Georgian and Ukrainian membership in NATO and the European Union.” The fact that the vast majority of the people of Ukraine are against NATO membership is of no account.

For the current scion of the noble Brzezinski dynasty it is the minority that counts. Abandoning the vision “undercuts those in Georgia and Ukraine who see their future in Europe. It reinforces Kremlin aspirations for a sphere of influence…”

The notion that “the Kremlin” aspires to a “sphere of influence” in Ukraine is absurd considering the extremely close historic links between Russia and Ukraine, whose capital Kiev was the cradle of the Russian state. But the Brzezinski family hailed from Galicia, the part of Western Ukraine which once belonged to Poland, and which is the center of the anti-Russian minority. U.S. foreign policy is all too frequently influenced by such foreign rivalries of which the vast majority of Americans are totally ignorant.

Relentless U.S. insistence on absorbing Ukraine continues despite the fact that it would imply expelling the Russian Black Sea fleet from its base in the Crimean peninsula, where the local population is overwhelmingly Russian-speaking and pro-Russian. This is a recipe for war with Russia if ever there was one.

And meanwhile, U.S. officials continue to declare their support for Georgia, whose American-trained president openly hopes to bring NATO support into his next war against Russia.

Aside from provocative naval maneuvers in the Black Sea, the United States, NATO and (as yet) non-NATO members Sweden and Finland regularly carry out major military exercises in the Baltic Sea, virtually in sight of the Russia cities of Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad. These exercises involve thousands of ground troops, hundreds of aircraft including F-15 jet fighters, AWACS, as well as naval forces including the U.S. Carrier Strike Group 12, landing craft and warships from a dozen countries.

Perhaps most ominous of all, in the Arctic region, the United States has been persistently engaging Canada and the Scandinavian states (including Denmark via Greenland) in a military deployment openly directed against Russia. The point of these Arctic deployment was stated by Fogh Rasmussen when he mentioned, among “threats” to be met by NATO, the fact that “Arctic ice is retreating, for resources that had, until now, been covered under ice.”

Now, one might consider that this uncovering of resources would be an opportunity for cooperation in exploiting them. But that is not the official U.S. mindset.

Last October, US Admiral James G Stavridis, supreme Nato commander for Europe, said global warming and a race for resources could lead to a conflict in the Arctic. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Christopher C. Colvin, in charge of Alaska’s coastline, said Russian shipping activity in the Arctic Ocean was “of particular concern” for the US and called for more military facilities in the region.

The US Geological Service believes that the Arctic contains up to a quarter of the world’s unexplored deposits of oil and gas. Under the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, a coastal state is entitled to a 200-nautical mile EEZ and can claim a further 150 miles if it proves that the seabed is a continuation of its continental shelf.

Russia is applying to make this claim.

After pushing for the rest of the world to adopt the Convention, the United States Senate has still not ratified the Treaty.

In January 2009, NATO declared the “High North” to be “of strategic interest to the Alliance,” and since then, NATO has held several major war games clearly preparing for eventual conflict with Russia over Arctic resources.

Russia largely dismantled its defenses in the Arctic after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has called for negotiating compromises over resource control.

Last September, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called for joint efforts to protect the fragile ecosystem, attract foreign investment, promote environmentally friendly technologies and work to resolve disputes through international law.

But the United States, as usual, prefers to settle the issue by throwing its weight around. This could lead to a new arms race in the Arctic, and even to armed clashes.

Despite all these provocative moves, it is most unlikely that the United States actually seeks war with Russia, although skirmishes and incidents here and there cannot be ruled out. The U.S. policy appears to be to encircle and intimidate Russia to such an extent that it accepts a semi-satellite status that neutralizes it in the anticipated future conflict with China.

Target China

The only reason to target China is like the proverbial reason to climb the mountain: it is there. It is big. And the US must be on top of everything.

The strategy for dominating China is the same as for Russia. It is classic warfare: encirclement, siege, more or less clandestine support for internal disorder. As examples of this strategy:

The United States is provocatively strengthening its military presence along the Pacific shores of China, offering “protection against China” to East Asian countries.

During the Cold War, when India got its armaments from the Soviet Union and struck a non-aligned posture, the United States armed Pakistan as its main regional ally. Now the U.S. is shifting its favors to India, in order to keep India out of the orbit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and to build it as a counterweight to China.

The United States and its allies support any internal dissidence that might weaken China, whether it is the Dalai Lama, the Uighurs, or Liu Xiaobo, the jailed dissident.

The Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed on Liu Xiaobo by a committee of Norwegian legislators headed by Thorbjorn Jagland, Norway’s echo of Tony Blair, who has served as Norway’s prime minister and foreign minister, and has been one of his country’s main cheerleaders for NATO.

At a NATO-sponsored conference of European parliamentarians last year, Jagland declared: “When we are not able to stop tyranny, war starts. This is why NATO is indispensable. NATO is the only multilateral military organization rooted in international law. It is an organization that the U.N. can use when necessary — to stop tyranny, like we did in the Balkans.” This is an astoundingly bold misstatement of fact, considering that NATO openly defied international law and the United Nations to make war in the Balkans – where in reality there was ethnic conflict, but no “tyranny”.

In announcing the choice of Liu, the Norwegian Nobel committee, headed by Jagland, declared that it “has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace.” The “close connection”, to follow the logic of Jagland’s own statements, is that if a foreign state fails to respect human rights according to Western interpretations, it may be bombed, as NATO bombed Yugoslavia. Indeed, the very powers that make the most noise about “human rights”, notably the United States and Britain, are the ones making the most wars all over the world. The Norwegian’s statements make it clear that granting the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu (who in his youth spent time in Norway) amounted in reality to an endorsement of NATO.

“Democracies” to replace the United Nations

The European members of NATO add relatively little to the military power of the United States. Their contribution is above all political. Their presence maintains the illusion of an “International Community”. The world conquest being pursued by the bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon can be presented as the crusade by the world’s “democracies” to spread their enlightened political order to the rest of a recalcitrant world.

The Euro-Atlantic governments proclaim their “democracy” as proof of their absolute right to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world. On the basis of the fallacy that “human rights are necessary for peace”, they proclaim their right to make war.

A crucial question is whether “Western democracy” still has the strength to dismantle this war machine before it is too late.

_____________________________________
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
  #25  
Old Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Indo-Israeli ...

Indo-Israeli Secret Collusion
By
Sajjad Shaukat

After the end of the Cold War, there was more emphasis on the open diplomacy due to the modern world trends like renunciation of war, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development through cooperation.

In this context, by bringing the bloody battles in our rooms, media made it difficult for politicians and diplomats to continue secret collusion which had caused World War 1 and World War 11.

In this connection, as part of a plot, both India and Israel have still a secret collusion and are acting upon a secret diplomacy. Although whole of the Islamic world is target of Indo-Israeli secret collusion, yet the same has intensified in case of Pakistan, China and Iran. In this regard, US-led some western countries have also been supporting the Indo-Israeli nexus overtly or covertly.

However, we cannot blame especially India and Israel including US regarding the conspiracy particularly against Pakistan, China and Iran without some concrete evidence. In this context, in his interview, published in the Indian weekly Outlook on February 18, 2008, Israel’s ambassador to India, Mark Sofer explained regarding India’s defence arrangements with Israel by disclosing, “We do have a defence relationship with India, which is no secret” and “with all due respect, the secret part will remain a secret.” On being asked whether he foresaw joint exercises, Sofer replied, “Certain issues need to remain under wraps for whatever reason.”

Indian ties with Israel remained under wraps till 2003, when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited India to officially reveal this relationship. In this respect, Indian ‘The Tribune’ wrote on September 10, 2003, “India and Israel took giant leaps forward in bolstering the existing strategic ties and forging new ones” and Tel Aviv has “agreed to share its expertise with India in such fields as anti-fidayeen operations, surveillance and defence satellites, intelligence sharing, space exploration and fighting against terrorism”, particularly in the Occupied Kashmir. Next day, ‘Indian Express’, disclosed, “From anti-missile systems to hi-tech radars, from sky drones to night-vision equipment, Indo-Israeli defense cooperation has known no bounds in recent times”.

On September 5, 2003 American Wall Street Journal pointed out, “The U.S. finally gave its approval to Israel’s delivery of Phalcon Airborne Warning & Controlling Systems (AWACS) to India”?this “sale might affect the conventional weapons balance between India and Pakistan”. On February 28, 2003 Jerusalem Post disclosed the “Israeli sale of the Arrow-II anti-ballistic missile defense system to India”, writing that “the U.S. was a collaborator in the project”. The Post further elaborated that “Israel could be acquiring an element of strategic depth by setting up logistical bases in the Indian Ocean for its navy”

Recent defence purchases by New Delhi from Tel Aviv in particular and other western countries in general include fast attack naval craft, electronic warfare system, unmanned aerial vehicles,?modernization of Indian Army, Mig-27 aircraft, the Indian Navy’s Ka-25, Russian-supplied Mig-21 aircraft, T-72 tanks etc. Besides, Indian secret deal with Israel entails submarine launched cruise missiles, micro-satellite systems, laser guided systems etc.

The matter is not confined to purchasing of military equipments; Indo-Israeli secret collusion is part of a dangerous strategic game in the region. In this connection, the then Israeli premier, Benjamin Netanyahu had already made it clear in July 1997 saying, “Our ties with India don’t have any limitations?as long as “India and Israel are friendly, it is a strategic gain”.

Security relationship between New Delhi and Tel Aviv has been promoted with the help of Washington to make the two states work closely to counter-balance a rising China whom America considers main competitor in the coming years.

As regards Indian secret agency RAW, with the technical support of Israeli secret agency Mossad, more than 25 Indian foreign offices, along with the north-western border of our country are supervising saboteurs to conduct bomb blasts and suicide attacks in Pakistan.

With the clandestine help of Israel and America, on 26 February 2008, India conducted its first test of a nuclear-capable missile from an under sea platform after completing its project in connection with air, land and sea ballistic systems. Next day, Pakistan’s Naval Chief Admiral Muhammad Afzal Tahir had disclosed, “We are aware of these developments, which are taking place with a view to putting nuclear weapons at sea and it is a very serious issue”. However, Washington, New Delhi and Israel are plotting to block the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for their joint strategic goals.

It is notable that taking cognizance of the growing threat of global terrorism which has been dividing the Western and Islamic nations on cultural and religious lines since 9/11, American and European governments have already started inter-faith dialogue especially between the Christian and the Muslim nations. Nevertheless, all these measures are proving fruitless due to a deliberate anti-Muslim campaign, launched by the Indo-Israeli lobbies, creating obstacles in global cultural cooperation which is essential for global peace. America and its allies continue to kill many innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Palestine through heavy aerial bombardment and ground shelling in the name of war on terror. US-led Indo-Israeli forces have been using every possible technique of state terrorism in the occupied territories which have become the breeding grounds of a prolonged interaction between freedom fighters and state terrorists.

The September 11 tragedy in the US provided both India and Israel with a golden opportunity to achieve their covert goals with the backing of American-led western countries. They immediately joined the US war on terror and have continuously been trying to convince the US-led western states through a propaganda campaign that the Kashmiri and Palestinian freedom fighters including Hezbollah are terrorists. They accuse Iran, Syria and Pakistan of sponsoring cross-border terrorism in the related regions of South Asia and the Middle East. At present, the equation of terrorism with the so-called Islamic fundamentalism is a key issue between the Eastern Muslims and Western Christians. Availing the ongoing international phenomena, by equating the ‘war of independence’ in Kashmir and Palestine with terrorism has become the main target of New Delhi and Tel Aviv.

It is of particular attention that the US has been providing Pakistan with military and economic aids due to its role of a frontline state for American war on terror, while on the other hand is accusing the country of safe havens for Al Qaeda related terrorists?cause of attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan. In the same sense, Washington, favours a peace process in the Middle East but on the other side, it supports Israeli right of self-defence, providing her a justification to keep on going with its atrocities on the innocent people of Gaza and the West Bank. Hindu-Jewish lobbies are also convincing the Americans for their favour in relation to Kashmir and invading tribal areas of Pakistan, So, American ambivalent approach has given a good chance to India and Israel in manipulating the same for their common covert interests.

If India considers Pakistan as its enemy number one, Israel takes Iran in the same sense especially due to its nuclear programme which is also negated by the US. Tel Aviv is also against Pakistan as it is the only nuclear Islamic country. Nevertheless, this similarity of interests has brought the two countries to follow a common secret diplomacy.

Returning to our earlier discussion, Indo-Israeli secret diplomacy is bound to result into a global catastrophe in wake of the different war between the US-led sovereign entities and non-sovereign entities. In this regard, we should remember that secret treaties were the major cause of the World War 1. Indian historian V.D Mahajan remarks that the major cause of the World War 1 was the secret alliance among Austria-Hungary and Germany?then Italy joined the Austro-German alliance, initiated by German leader Bismark. On the other side France, Britain and Japan concluded counter alliance?ultimately all that resulted into militarization of Europe and the World War 1. In this respect, if not checked in time, the secret collusion of Israel and India which is being patronized by Washington could lead the international community to World War111, popularly, known as clash of civilizations.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations. Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Source: KashmirWatch - Latest News & In-depth Coverage on Kashmir Conflict
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
engraj (Monday, January 14, 2013), MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
  #26  
Old Thursday, July 21, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default US-India-Israel ...

US-India-Israel alliance
By
Mukhtar Ahmed Butt

Admiral Mike Mullen has branded the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan as the “epicenter of terrorism”. He also stated that ‘Pakistan army considers India its traditional enemy’.

The fact of the matter is that until India withdraws its occupation forces from held Kashmir and act upon United Nations resolutions, it would naturally be considered as enemy.

Notwithstanding, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh surpassed Mike Mullen in this regard and declared that ‘Pakistan owns terror factories and until they are blocked, our relations cannot move towards normalization.’ So far as our meek opinion is concerned, Pakistan has no terror factory so far but of course our country is spying those terrorists which are coming from cross-border areas.

It is pertinent to mention here that Sikh leaders, who had come to Pakistan to participate in Baba Guru Nanak’s 542 birthday, said while talking to media that the whole world knows that ‘India is busy in suppressing Kahmiri and Khalsa freedom movement on gun point through its police and army. It is a sheer injustice to Kashmiris and Sikh community’.

This is not our opinion but Indian citizens and Sikh leaders have delivered such statements. Now we just have to see as to when and how much seriously the world community does take notice. Prior to it, Arundhati Roy too had declared that Kashmir is not an integral part of India. Now the freedom movement in Kashmir is being organised by Kashmiri youth. Perceiving its intensity and success, Russia has offered to play the role of a mediator between India and Pakistan.

Russia has been an alley to India, providing her full and modern military assistance. Russia had always opposed Pakistan in regard of Kashmir issue and remained a stumbling block to the settlement of Kashmir dispute.

In this backdrop, the proposal from Russia seems to be a big change. Pakistan should welcome it and raise it on international front. Pakistan should also applaud Russia for it. Unfortunately, we go for compromises and for that very reason we could not raise Kashmir issue on international front. Our emphasis was on hollow slogans but we never took any practical step in this regard. We have sufficient proof of RAW involvement in Balochistan and Karachi but it is astonishing that we could not raise it on international front.

Target killings, kidnappings, assaults on government buildings and damaging oil pipelines have become a routine affair in Pakistan. A common perception is that Raw is involved in it. According to some information, India is providing financial and logistic support to those elements who are involved in chaos and lawlessness in Pakistan. It is being orchestrated by India’s intelligence agencies and their agents who get full support from them.

In fact, India provides visas and other facilities to such elements so that they could carry out terrorist activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Besides this, RAW and MOSAD are backing up some ‘groups’ for carrying out terrorist activities in an effort to embitter Pakistan’s relations with China and Iran. History bears witness to the fact that India always supported anti-Pakistan elements so that terrorist activities could be conducted in Pakistan. India and Israel tend to work with US collaboration and its financial support to incite rebel elements in Pakistan for terrorism so that Pakhtun areas could be declared as ‘AL-Qaeda havens’ and under this pretext US could carry out drone attacks in Balochistan and sabotage the atmosphere of reconciliation between government and nationalists.

The fact of matter is that all previous governments of Pakistan have just pushed aside Balochistan and could not utilized precious natural resources. Notwithstanding, anti-Pakistan elements are taking optimal advantage of this situation and inciting local populace for disintegrating Pakistan.

Unfortunately, this issue is not taken up beyond rhetoric and local people are not being included practically. If the present situation goes on, US-India-Israel alliance could be detrimental to our interests. For that very reason, we would have to pay heed to resolve such issues seriously.

The writer is a well-known columnist of Jang newspaper.
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
afzaliffi (Thursday, July 21, 2011), Billa (Saturday, July 30, 2011), MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
  #27  
Old Monday, August 01, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default China Puts US on eBay...

China Puts US on eBay
By
Humayun Gauhar

“China puts US on eBay – ‘Government sold separately’,” sales listing says. “Showing its impatience with the debt ceiling stalemate in Washington, China today took the extraordinary step of putting the United States of America on eBay,” jokes comedian and satirist Andy Borowitz.

“Officials at the online auction site said they believed it was the first time a major Western nation had been listed for sale there ‘if you don’t count Greece’.

“In Beijing, the Chinese Finance Ministry said that it had considered waiting until August 2 to see if the US would ever pay back its multitrillion-dollar obligations, but ultimately decided to cut its losses. ‘We think we’ll attract a buyer on eBay,’ the Ministry said. ‘Say what you will about the US, it’s still one of the top fifty countries in the world’.

“The sales listing for the US contains some interesting information, such as China’s description of the former superpower as being in ‘fair to average condition’.

“The listing also includes the stipulation ‘government sold separately’, which the Finance Ministry took great pains to explain. ‘We thought that including the government in the sale might turn off potential buyers’, the Ministry said. ‘Plus, the US government isn’t ours to sell anyway – it’s owned by the Koch brothers’.

“With no bidders in the first 24 hours on eBay, China admitted that it would be challenging to unload the US, but it still held out hope that a buyer would step forward: ‘We’ve got our fingers crossed for Zuckerberg’.”

Mark Anthony: “O, what a fall was there, my countrymen! Then I, and you, and all of us fell down…” Yes, when the US gets a haircut the ‘Great Global Haircut’ follows. Don’t gloat.

If Osama Bin Laden was indeed the perpetrator of 9/11 and his objective was to destroy America, he must be laughing all the way to a bank that is not bankrupt – if he can find one. The demented American response has done his work for him. Delilah Bin Laden has given Uncle Sam (son) a deadly haircut.

The damage has been done. America has been shown to be bankrupt. If the US doesn’t default next week, it soon will. Increasing the debt limit is a bailout. The problem is: who will bail out the bailer? Solution: make your own bailout by printing and borrowing more. Simple, but stupid. When debt becomes an addiction, it’s deadly.

Consider this scenario. The US doesn’t meet its debt obligations. It defaults. America’s credit rating falls. Interest rates rise. The economy goes into a tailspin. Greater recession, perhaps depression, ensue. The dollar takes a nosedive. Its viability as a reserve currency becomes questionable. Accumulated default increases indebtedness. Now America has to pay more on its multifarious, mind boggling debt. Raising more money and getting more loans become difficult for lack of credibility.

It starts selling gold from its reserves. Gold prices fall. Watch it. The present 1.3 percent growth rate falls by one percent – effectively zero. No growth, no new jobs. Joblessness increases. Unemployment rises to 15 percent from the present 10. Abject poverty – those earning $18,500 a year or less – increases from the present 10 percent to 15 – that’s about 48 million people in the richest and most powerful country ever, as many as in Pakistan. Real incomes decrease. Home loans defaults increase. Default on commercial real estate begins. Credit Default Swaps that insure against default go into a spin.

Banks, insurance companies and finance houses go under again. There’s no money for more bailouts. Homelessness increases. Prices rise. Food becomes dearer and scarcer. There is social dislocation, frustration, despair and anger. People revolt. There is civil unrest and disobedience. The world media variously dub it “People’s Uprising”, “Second American Revolution”, “American Awakening” and the “American Spring”. Government gets tough and clamps down. The world calls it a “hegemonic tyrannical dictatorship” that gets indebted over its head and causes a global economic meltdown.

The most powerful countries – China and Russia with “the most dangerous” Iran and Pakistan in support and perhaps a disenchanted Saudi Arabia and India in tow – unite to take action on the side of the protesters and attack America. Their demands: Obama must go. They recognise John Doe, the rebel leader, as the legitimate US president. Russia expels all US diplomats and invites ‘President’ John Doe to replace them.

If this sounds fanciful, consider this: transpose the name America for Libya, and China and Russia for America and NATO, and it sounds no longer fanciful. What double standards: what is fanciful for America is ‘realistic’ for Libya.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

The Senator who said these sensible words in 2006 is President of the United States of America today. Mr Flip Flop is now screaming for a massive raise in the debt ceiling. Hypocrisy personified. “Americans deserve better”, do they? What a hackneyed phrase uttered by every hypocritical politician. Americans deserve better certainly, for they are amongst the nicest but the most naive people in the world. Sadly, their successive governments have done them no credit and the world no good. They deserve a better economic philosophy based on living within one’s means that serves them and not the military-industrial complex, Big Business and Wall Street. They deserve a better political philosophy too – live and let live. One won’t work without the other.

More hypocrisy. The US dollar, privately owned by the Federal Reserve that is owned by about a dozen mostly Jewish-owned banks, carries the legend: “In God we Trust”. Do you? Do you really? Living in usury and forcing others to do so is akin to declaring war on God. Take that legend off: it is tantamount to mocking God.

Don’t rule out anything. Could you ever have imagined that America would go bankrupt? In this great global flux, anything is possible. The Leviathan is convulsing, morphing, crafting a new Social Contract, a New World Order. But disorder must come before order. So here’s another fanciful scenario: when it runs out of answers the US government gives a ‘Hail Mary’ pass to the military. Goodbye democracy. Welcome to the Third World of America.

The writer is a political analyst. He can be contacted at humayun.gauhar786@gmail.com
Source---Pakistan Today
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
  #28  
Old Monday, August 01, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default America-Pakistan-India triangle...

America-Pakistan-India triangle
By
Khalid Iqbal

Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States, who ironically enjoys the reputation of being an American Ambassador to Pakistan, based in Washington, has recently quipped: “The most hated country in Pakistan is our top trading partner, top aid donor, top weapon supplier and top remittance source.”

Perhaps, the significant reason behind this anomaly is the snowballing India-US nexus at the cost of Pakistan. De-hyphenating India-Pakistan in the American strategic calculus has, indeed, created more problems for America and this region, rather than it intended to resolve. The obsession to sponsor the rise of India, as a major player on the Asian geopolitical canvas, has severely curtailed USA’s leverage over India; President Barack Obama dare not pronounce ‘K’ for Kashmir once again!

The US President’s visit to India had left a negative impact on the whole region, which has been reinforced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent rhetoric. By prompting New Delhi to bite more than it could chew, Washington is well on its way to sow the seeds of perpetual destabilisation of this region at the expense of China as well as India itself.
Although, in the past, the US administration played an effective role in diffusing Pak-India tension and did not allow the matters to degenerate into tactical showdown, yet it allowed New Delhi to maintain strategic pressures on Islamabad through military deployments, diplomatic manoeuvres and resource squeezing.

At the same time, the leaderships in Islamabad and Washington differ considerably on issues of vital interest to Pakistan; nuclear policy, energy acquisition from Iran and China, end game in Afghanistan, and the Kashmir dispute are some major areas of divergence. Most of these issues are intricately linked to India. Hence, a Pakistan-India-America triangle has emerged. It is also a fact that the US administration retains a cunning balancing leverage between India and Pakistan, and uses the pressure points aptly to make the two countries do its bidding.

Recently, the US lawmakers have rejected the bill about the stoppage of aid to Pakistan, but have agreed to attach strings. However, public opinion is gaining strength that the aid should be refused and to make up for the loss the federal government should proportionately enhance the transit fee on NATO’s supply containers and aircrafts destined for the Afghan war zone through Pakistan.

Furthermore, America frequently partners the Indian effort in maintaining a high-pitched tirade against Pakistan’s armed force and the ISI; this has scaled new heights since the cowardly Abbottabad attack and all the guns are being directed against Pakistan. The political leadership, however, is being spared by the propagandist of any wrongdoing with a clear objective of creating a wedge between the political and military echelons of national leadership.

Timed with Hillary’s recent visit, Americans took a well calculated step to appease India by arresting the Director of the Kashmir American Council, Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai. Certainly, the arrest was a setback to the legitimate rights of the people of Kashmir, and their struggle for self-determination. While New Delhi was overwhelmed, Islamabad’s response was aggressive. Our Foreign Office announced: “A démarche was made to the US Embassy in Islamabad to register the concerns, in particular the slander campaign against Pakistan.”
To mitigate the defeat in Afghanistan, the US is working overtime to shift the blame for every wrong to Pakistan, while it is all set to involve India in Afghanistan militarily. In India, Hillary sought to reassure it that the US administration has no plans to cut and run when it comes to Afghanistan, but she certainly was bluffing. Those familiar with the Obama administration’s thinking believe that the White House wants to be able to point out concrete achievements in the run-up to the 2012 elections, while wrapping things up in Afghanistan “at any costs”.

Ms Clinton played another pressure card by projecting India as the leading power in Asia. This effort was launched to coax it into a proxy role to counterbalance China. She called upon India to become a “more assertive” leader in Asia, in Southeast Asia, the Pacific Rim, Central Asia and Pacific Ocean. The fact is that India is having a hard time holding its own in its immediate neighbourhood, as Beijing is expanding its links with Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Nepal. Hence, to expect India to match China in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Rim, where the latter has built-in advantages, is a pipedream. The Indians will indeed remain cautious while siding with the Americans against the Chinese. It needs China’s nod to realise its aspiration for a permanent seat in the UNSC.

Also, in the context of terrorism, India needs to understand that militants are well organised from Somalia to Afghanistan and from the Central Asian Republics to the Occupied Kashmir. The international security analysts are already predicting that India is on the brink of becoming a battleground of these transnational groups. Because the outreach of these elements is much broader than Pakistan’s logical capacity to handle them; even America is unable to contain them. For this, Pakistan has already proposed the setting up of SAARC police and pooling up regional resources.

Under these settings, the fate of Pak-India Foreign Minister level talks was correctly prejudged by the analysts in the two countries. There was unanimity of opinion that parleys would remain at the cosmetic level, routines would be discussed and core issues be sidestepped. Travel, trade and terrorism would be in the forefront, while water and Kashmir in the background. Mumbai would be highlighted and Samjhota Express would get a passing mention. Matters have moved in the same way. Nevertheless, some functional dialogue process is always better than none!

In an assessment after their meeting, the Indian Foreign Minister said ties were back “on the right track”, while the Pakistani Foreign Minister spoke of a “new era” of cooperation. Nevertheless, there was little in the way of substantive agreements to back up the general mood of optimism: The joint statement was monotonous, envisaging a general bilateral effort to combat terrorism, increase trade and keep the peace dialogue going.

One must understand that now America is in the driving seat of Pak-India interactions, and the talks are likely to follow the pattern of ‘sound good but solve nothing’. After all, America has a long experience of sponsoring a futile dialogue process between arch rivals – Palestine and Israel. So, it remains for India and Pakistan not to get locked into a zero sum game. Both the countries need to strengthen their bilateral institutions to absorb sporadic crises and move on.

The writer is a retired Air Commodore and former Assistant Chief of Air Staff of the Pakistan Air Force. At present, he is a member of the visiting faculty at the PAF Air War College, Naval War College and Quaid-i-Azam University.
Email:khalid3408@gmail.com
Source---The Nation
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
  #29  
Old Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Can India lead Asia?....

Can India lead Asia?
By
Javed Hafiz

India has been obsessed with the idea of leading Asia, exclusively if possible. Jawaharlal Nehru dreamt of a global role for India, based on its domination of the Indian Ocean and on its economic strength. Nehru’s dream went sour in 1962 and he did not live much longer. Nobel Laureate V S Naipaul calls India “a wounded civilisation” that has been overrun, plundered, occupied and ruled by foreigners several times in its history. A report that attempted to measure Indian power a few years ago observed that India “belongs to the class of countries that are always emerging, but not quite arriving.”

However, in recent years a lot has changed in India’s favour. Some years ago a noted defence analyst had observed that Pakistan was a drag on the Indian global power ambition. When I met him a couple of years ago, I asked him whether he still held that opinion. He replied that “India is in a different league now and it has gained much momentum.” Six years ago, the United States decided to upgrade its relationship with India to a strategic level. Ever since, it has urged India to play an assertive role in the Asia-Pacific region. But is India ready and, indeed, capable of playing that role?

In order to become a leading global power, a nation must fulfil certain criteria. It should have sizeable territory, an optimum level of population, internal cohesion, rich natural and human resources, and be outward-looking. More importantly, it should wield considerable economic clout and possess military muscle. However, it should preferably be able to cover the military muscle with a soft image. It should have the wherewithal to make friends abroad and influence other nations. India meets only some of the criteria. It has made impressive economic strides in the last two decades. From a growth rate of around 3 percent until 1990, it has since maintained a rate of around 8 percent. Economic development has not only created a sizable middle class but also translated into galloping defence budgets.

The Indo-US nuclear deal is a shot in the arm for India. It will not only strengthen India’s economic muscle but could also be a force-multiplier. In addition, the US has succeeded in dissuading India from importing Iranian gas. Meanwhile, the Indian image abroad has undergone a sea change. The Indian diaspora abroad is huge and, in some countries like the United States, quite resourceful. Arab countries have a sizeable Indian manpower and investments. A joke an Arab ambassador told me in Muscat said it all. An Arab leader asked his subjects to pray for rain. The prayer was granted, and it started raining in Mumbai, Delhi and Kerala! On a more serious note, the Saudi monarch, a great friend of Pakistan, suggested observer status for India in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference a few years ago, much to our disappointment. Whether we like it or not, the Arabs have de-hyphenated India from Pakistan although they still want good ties with Pakistan.

Democracy, Bollywood and cricket have given India a global soft image. However, India has many limitations. It lives under the Chinese shadow. About 400 million Indians still live below the poverty line and India is a recipient of foreign economic assistance. The Maoist insurgents pose a grave threat. India is not yet a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a sine qua non for big- power status today. Indian infrastructure, the roads in particular, are below par. India’s GDP is about half that of China. Its military muscle is also weaker than China’s.

While the Chinese staged the 2008 Olympics so impressively, the Indians had to struggle to host the Commonwealth Games. It can be said with some certainty now that, despite a strong desire to teach Pakistan lessons in 2002 and 2008, the Indian military establishment could muster the courage to do so. Corruption in India is rampant and Indian nationals hold the dubious distinction of holding the highest amount of black money in Swiss accounts.

So, in order to become a global power, India needs to be propped up and those props have been provided by the sole superpower, and yet India has not quite reached the goalpost. One is reminded of Iran under the Shah, which was also propped up by the US for a regional role. When the Shah fell from power, that role also fell like nine pins. For any such role to endure it has to be based on internal strength rather than external props.

The Chinese pursue an active but rather quiet diplomacy. China has never shown any anxiety about the Indian desire to lead Asia. For many years now both China and India have shown deference for each other. Their huge bilateral trade is now the bedrock of Sino-Indian relations. The bilateral trade volume crossed the $50 billion mark in 2008, with the balance tilted in China’s favour. Chinese foreign exchange reserves are $2.622 trillion, while Indian reserves stand at $315 billion. India is extra careful about China as it needs its vital support for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

It is essential for a global power to have a wide following in the comity of nations. While India has certainly made diplomatic gains, the US support for its Security Council seat being the prime example, it is still quite a way from the international consensus about its future role. In this case, the US wants India to effectively counter the growing Chinese influence. The US, the UK, France and Germany had similar perceptions about the Soviet Union during Cold War days. Moreover, Europe needed US economic assistance after the Second World War. That strengthened the United States’ credentials as the unquestioned leader of the free world. But Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia have views about China very different from those of India. They do not perceive any threat from China. Pakistan may no longer be a drag on Indian ambitions but it is not ready to be a submissive India follower either.

As it is, India competes with China for influence in Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Sino-Pakistani ties are viewed by India as part of an attempt to encircle it. India does not enjoy acceptance by the regional nations as their exclusive leader. Its future role in Afghanistan may not only be questioned by Pakistan but half of the Afghan population as well. Economic growth in India has been very uneven. While some states like Bihar are still impoverished, some regions have undergone impressive development. This uneven development is one of the root causes of the Maoist insurgency. More importantly, India is not a country of the Pacific. Indeed, the proactive US sponsorship of the Indian leadership role, as America’s regional proxy, may be counterproductive and be resisted by some nations.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that India will not emerge as the leader of Asia. It will be one of three Asian leaders, the other two being Japan and China which will be in the forefront. At a later stage Indonesia and South Korea may also join the league.

The writer is a retired ambassador. Email: javedhafiz@hotmail.com
Source---Dawn
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
MoonSaghar (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)
  #30  
Old Thursday, August 04, 2011
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: lhr
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
yusra84 is on a distinguished road
Default

the file on filesonic -why nations fight has been deleted.plz refer to some other site.thank you
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to prepare notes for competitive exams theelegant444 Tips and Experience Sharing 3 Tuesday, December 11, 2018 02:50 PM
Very Important : How to Prepare Study Notes Shaa-Baaz Tips and Experience Sharing 5 Sunday, May 21, 2017 08:30 PM
Questions of English Literature Last Island English Literature 5 Friday, December 27, 2013 01:25 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.