@ sureshlasi

Thanxxx

Very right

Right dear....

As I hav posted "Washington's Post-View" on this issue in my last post that clearly indicates the "intensity" of this burning issue.

In this regard, one can easily perceive that what will happen?

in my opinion,

1) Musharraf will hav 2 leave his Uniform.
2) Benazir Bhutto will b the next Ruling authority of Pakistan.
3) Musharraf will be compelled by her 2 leave his uniform coz it is the only way of agreement.
4) Chief Justice will enjoy his status.
5) Waziristan and Wana-sort of Operations will again start that would damage the prestige of Pak Army more crucially.
6) Madrassahs and Islamic Extremism will b handled on very 1st preority.
7) Un-stability inside the country will b seen i.e. more dangerous 4 us.
8) Pakistan needs a big decision 4m Musharraf's side ...... i.e. act like Mahatir Muhammad u know what I am trying 2 say.....

Pakistan is on verge of political, financial and religious dilemma and it should b tackled with wiser approach and statesmanship.

Regards

Iraq situation is going to be very tense for US. It must be settled now and it will have serious consequences on international political scenario.

Situation is going to be very serious and its implications on Asian politics alongwith Middle-East will be much serious.

This is an article published in Washington Post yesterday that leads me to say only......

Ham agar arz karein gay to shikayat ho gi

[QUOTE]Senate Backs Pullout Proposal

Hagel Joins Democrats On War Funding Bill


By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 28, 2007; Page A01
Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation.
The defection of a prominent Republican war critic, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, sealed the Democrats' win. Hagel, who opposed identical withdrawal language two weeks ago, walked onto the Senate floor an hour before the late-afternoon vote and announced that he would "not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy," adding: "It's now time for the Congress to step forward and establish responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military involvement in Iraq."
Democratic leaders think the 50 to 48 victory greatly strengthens their negotiating position as they prepare to face down a White House that yesterday reiterated its threat of a presidential veto. The Senate vote was also the first time since Democrats took control of Congress in January that a majority of lawmakers have supported binding legislation to bring U.S. troops home.
The Senate withdrawal provision, which sets a March 31, 2008, target for ending U.S. combat operations, is tucked into a $122 billion package to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a must-pass bill that Democrats view as their best shot at forcing Bush to change direction. The withdrawal language was nearly identical to that of a Senate resolution rejected 50 to 48 two weeks ago.
Top Democrats in the House and the Senate had been uncertain about the outcome of the vote when they convened for a joint leadership meeting yesterday morning. They were convinced that defeat of the Senate's proposed timeline would force negotiators to soften the House language, which sets a firm deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, for the removal of U.S. combat forces. But they concluded that a Democratic victory would give them no reason to compromise, according to House Democratic leadership aides.
Speaking to reporters, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) was conciliatory, but only to a point: "We ought to reach out to the president and say, 'Mr. President, this is not a unilateral government. It is a separation of powers, and the Congress of the United States . . . has taken some action. You obviously disagree with that. Where are the areas of compromise?' "
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said he was skeptical about proceeding too quickly. "Of course, we should reach out to the White House, and I'm happy to do that," he said. But, he added: "They have been very uncooperative to this point. Hopefully, they will cooperate with us." Referring to the president, he said, "I would like to have a bill that he wouldn't veto."
Senate GOP leaders remain confident that Bush will ultimately prevail. "I expect the president to get the money for the troops, to get this bill in large measure like he wants it," predicted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). "It may take two tries to get there, but I think that's very likely going to be the final outcome."
But Democrats are just as convinced that they have the momentum on the issue. "This is not one battle. It's a long-term campaign," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.). "Every time we have a vote like this, it ratchets up the pressure on the president and on many of those of his party."
Under the Senate bill, which is slated for a vote on final passage as early as today, certain U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after the March 31, 2008, target date in order to conduct counterterrorism training and security operations. But troop withdrawals would begin within four months of enactment.
The White House has strongly protested both the House and Senate bills, issuing a series of veto threats. "This bill assumes and forces the failure of the new strategy even before American commanders in the field are able to fully implement their plans," the administration said in a statement yesterday, referring to the Senate measure.
Democrats and Republicans largely remained united in the Senate vote, with only Hagel and Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.) on the GOP side voting to preserve the withdrawal provision, and Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) the only Democrat to break ranks. Yet, on both sides, several senators remained undecided until the roll was called, and Vice President Cheney was on hand to break a tie in the case of a deadlock.
Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said she was torn between her desire to send a strong message to the president that a change of course is needed and her uneasiness about wading into war policymaking. "Clearly it's frustrating," she said of the grim conditions in Iraq. "On the other hand, you don't want to telegraph to the enemy a moment in time" for leaving. Snowe wound up voting with her party.
Because troop funding is at stake, Republicans have decided to forgo maneuvers that could draw out the Senate debate or block final passage, tactics the GOP had used successfully in previous Iraq war showdowns. Some GOP senators even floated the idea of introducing the Iraq war legislation of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as an amendment to the spending bill, in a bid to make political mischief. The Clinton proposal would cap troop levels, start a phased withdrawal and cut off Iraqi security funding under some circumstances, but so far has attracted no co-sponsors.
Reid said final negotiations between the House and the Senate will take place after the spring recess. Despite signs that Democrats are slowly building support for their position, they are still nowhere close to achieving the two-thirds House and Senate majorities that would be necessary to override a Bush veto.[/QUOTE]

Ham agar arz karein gay to shikayat ho gi ....... aur ....... koi batlaey k ham batlaein kia?

Israel, U.S. Shared Data On Suspected Nuclear Site


Israel's decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, U.S. government sources said.

The Bush administration has not commented on the Israeli raid or the underlying intelligence. Although the administration was deeply troubled by Israel's assertion that North Korea was assisting the nuclear ambitions of a country closely linked with Iran, sources said, the White House opted against an immediate response because of concerns it would undermine long-running negotiations aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.

Ultimately, however, the United States is believed to have provided Israel with some corroboration of the original intelligence before Israel proceeded with the raid, which hit the Syrian facility in the dead of night to minimize possible casualties, the sources said.

The target of Israel's attack was said to be in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. A Middle East expert who interviewed one of the pilots involved said they operated under such strict operational security that the airmen flying air cover for the attack aircraft did not know the details of the mission. The pilots who conducted the attack were briefed only after they were in the air, he said. Syrian authorities said there were no casualties.
U.S. sources would discuss the Israeli intelligence, which included satellite imagery, only on condition of anonymity, and many details about the North Korean-Syrian connection remain unknown. The quality of the Israeli intelligence, the extent of North Korean assistance and the seriousness of the Syrian effort are uncertain, raising the possibility that North Korea was merely unloading items it no longer needed. Syria has actively pursued chemical weapons in the past but not nuclear arms -- leaving some proliferation experts skeptical of the intelligence that prompted Israel's attack.

Syria and North Korea both denied this week that they were cooperating on a nuclear program. Bush refused to comment yesterday on the attack, but he issued a blunt warning to North Korea that "the exportation of information and/or materials" would affect negotiations under which North Korea would give up its nuclear programs in exchanges for energy aid and diplomatic recognition.

"To the extent that they are proliferating, we expect them to stop that proliferation, if they want the six-party talks to be successful," he said at a news conference, referring to negotiations that also include China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.
Unlike its destruction of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Israel made no announcement of the recent raid and imposed strict censorship on reporting by the Israeli media. Syria made only muted protests, and Arab leaders have remained silent. As a result, a daring and apparently successful attack to eliminate a potential nuclear threat has been shrouded in mystery.

"There is no question it was a major raid. It was an extremely important target," said Bruce Riedel, a former intelligence officer at Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "It came at a time the Israelis were very concerned about war with Syria and wanted to dampen down the prospects of war. The decision was taken despite their concerns it could produce a war. That decision reflects how important this target was to Israeli military planners."
Israel has long known about Syria's interest in chemical and even biological weapons, but "if Syria decided to go beyond that, Israel would think that was a real red line," Riedel said.
Edward Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and founding director of Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, said that when he was in Israel this summer he noticed "a great deal of concern in official Israeli circles about the situation in the north," in particular whether Syria's young ruler, Bashar al-Assad, "had the same sensitivity to red lines that his father had." Bashar succeeded his Hafez al-Assad as president of Syria in 2000.
The Israeli attack came just three days after a North Korean ship docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, carrying a cargo that was officially listed as cement.

The ship's role remains obscure. Israeli sources have suggested it carried nuclear equipment. Others have maintained that it contained only missile parts, and some have said the ship's arrival and the attack are merely coincidental. One source suggested that Israel's attack was prompted by a fear of media leaks on the intelligence.
The Bush administration's wariness when presented with the Israeli intelligence contrasts with its reaction in 2002, when U.S. officials believed they had caught North Korea building a clandestine nuclear program in violation of a nuclear-freeze deal arranged by the Clinton administration.
After the Bush administration's accusation, the Clinton deal collapsed and North Korea restarted a nuclear reactor, stockpiled plutonium and eventually conducted a nuclear test. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice convinced Bush this year to accept a deal with North Korea to shut down the reactor, infuriating conservatives inside and outside the administration.
But for years, Bush has also warned North Korea against engaging in nuclear proliferation, specifically making that a red line that could not be crossed after North Korea tested a nuclear device last year. The Israeli intelligence therefore suggested North Korea was both undermining the agreement and crossing that line.

Conservative critics of the administration's recent diplomacy with North Korea have seized on reports of the Israeli intelligence as evidence that the White House is misguided if it thinks it can ever strike a lasting deal with Pyongyang. "However bad it might be for the six-party talks, U.S. security requires taking this sort of thing seriously," said John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who was a top arms control official in Bush's first term.

But advocates of engagement have accused critics of trying to sabotage the talks. China on Monday abruptly postponed a round of six-party talks scheduled to begin this week, but U.S. officials now say the talks should start again Thursday.

Some North Korean experts said they are puzzled why, if the reports are true, Pyongyang would jeopardize the hard-won deal with the United States and the other four countries. "It does not make any sense at all in the context of the last nine months," said Charles "Jack" Pritchard, a former U.S. negotiator with North Korea and now president of the Korea Economic Institute.

Today's most important opinion ....... taken from Wasington Post


At U.N., Iranian Leader Is Defiant on Nuclear Efforts


UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 25 -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Tuesday not to give in to pressure by "arrogant powers" trying to force him to abandon his nation's uranium-enrichment program and unilaterally declared that as far as he is concerned, "the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed."

In a fiery speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Ahmadinejad denounced what he called the "master-servant relationship of the Medieval Age" imposed by the United States and other leading nations through the Security Council. He expressed confidence that God would not allow the Bush administration to launch a military attack against his country and said Iran has "spared no effort to build confidence" that it wants only civilian energy, not nuclear weapons.

His address punctuated a shadow debate with President Bush, who spoke to the assembly earlier in the day and called on world leaders to join him in a global "mission of liberation" against repressive governments such as that in Iran. Although the two men never crossed paths, their competing visions presented here framed the opening of the assembly's annual session and underscored the diplomatic confrontation between the two nations.

Bush did not mention the nuclear dispute with Iran in his speech, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other advisers used their time here to build support for a new Security Council resolution that would impose more meaningful punishment on Tehran for ignoring a U.N. mandate to suspend its enrichment program. For his public remarks, the president focused instead on tyranny, citing Iran as a prime example.

"Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under a dictatorship," Bush said in his address. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of Human Rights.

The president used the occasion to announce new sanctions against the military government in Burma, where tens of thousands of demonstrators are in the streets protesting what he called "a 19-year reign of fear." Bush also pointed to Cuba, where he said "the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end"; Zimbabwe, for launching "an assault on its people"; and Sudan, for "repression" and "genocide."

Ahmadinejad sat 14 rows back as Bush spoke, idly touching his lower lip, whispering to a seatmate and once checking his watch. While the Cuban foreign minister stormed out in protest, Ahmadinejad fired back in his own speech hours later, lacing his remarks with religious references and anti-American rhetoric. Bush skipped the speech, attending another meeting.

While not mentioning the United States explicitly, the Iranian leader denounced nations that establish secret prisons, abduct people, tap private telephone calls and ignore the law. "Some powers do not value any nation or human beings," he said. In Iraq, "no day passes without people being killed, wounded or displaced," Ahmadinejad said, adding that the "occupiers," as he referred to U.S. forces, "do not even have the courage to declare their defeat and exit Iraq."

He then held a news conference that was typical Ahmadinejad -- outspoken, in command and impervious to diplomatic norms. He called any U.N. sanctions against Iran "illegal" and brushed off concern about U.S. military action if he does not comply. "They want to hurt us," he said, "but with the will of God, they won't be able to do it." Asked whether he is concerned that Israel might strike Iran, as it did Syria recently, he snapped, "Next question." He also ignored a plea shouted by the wife of an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hezbollah last year.

An Iranian reporter asked Ahmadinejad how he could say during an appearance at Columbia University on Monday that there are no homosexuals in Iran, noting that she knows a few herself.

"Seriously?" he replied. "I don't know of any." He asked for their addresses so the government could "be aware of what's going on."

The U.S.-Iran confrontation played out all day through surrogates and allies. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in his maiden address to the assembly, warned that a nuclear Iran would be an "unacceptable risk" to international stability and said "there will not be peace in the world" if the international community falters in its bid to stop Tehran's program. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega delivered a fist-pumping condemnation of the United States, saying it had no right to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program, because it was the only nation ever to use an atomic bomb.

Lawmakers in Washington weighed in on Ahmadinejad's visit. The House voted 397 to 16 to block foreign investment in Iran, particularly the energy sector, and to bar Bush from waiving U.S. sanctions. The Senate debated a nonbinding resolution urging the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, but the vote was delayed amid haggling.

Iran was only part of a broad agenda for Bush during a three-day stay here. He met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to press for more political reconciliation, conducted a democracy roundtable with other heads of state and participated in a Security Council discussion of the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region

"Maybe some don't think it's genocide," Bush said of the killing there as he pressed for a peacekeeping force. "But if you've been raped, your human rights have been violated, if you're mercilessly killed by roaming bands, you know it's genocide. And the fundamental question is: Are we, the free world, willing to do more?"

Several hundred people outside the U.N. building demonstrated against Bush's policies on Iraq and terrorism. Some wore orange jumpsuits to demonstrate concern over prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. About a dozen were arrested for civil disobedience.

Another protester was Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe P¿rez Roque, who denounced Bush's "mediocre statement," calling him "a criminal" with "no moral authority or credibility to judge any other country." Bush adviser Michael G. Kozak later retorted: "The Cubans know how to dish it out, but they don't know how to take it."

dear its good to see that you have provided us a common platform for healthy discussion..all the worthy members are requested to share their knowledge on this front fascilitating the beginners,like me, in getting benefit

coming to the topic
Iran's courage and standstill over its controversial nuclear programme is really appreciable....they are,after all, not like our so-called representatives who buckle on knees before US' brutal intentions..i was irked by BB who is trying to convince US by assuring that she would give a chance to IAEA safegaurds by letting them interrogate our nuclear scientist Dr.Khan about his gang.....these people deserve no place in our country who are ready to aggravate country in the pursuit of power...
we have seen US has raised no concerns over Dr. Parsad an indian scientist who transfrred the blueprints to north korea and iran......american policies are the responsible for the killings of innocent people in jihadi atricities....while trumpeting iran's nuclear progaramme america has turned blind eye to isreal's nuclear programme
why this dual standard??????
pakistan must realize that the time has come to set aside the america's war against terrorism and concentrate its decaying democracy,energy resources,people welfare....i know i have gone out of context but dear how one can concentrate on other countries when his own country is perished and humiliated by some OUTLAWS
thanx

__________________
Whatever mind can conceive,it can achieve - W.Clement Stone

@ Waseem gurmani



Thanx

Agreed

and also

request to all worthy members to share their imp views on this common platform