Macaca
05-14 06:24 PM
An Increasing Population is a Good Thing. So is Immigration. (http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6941654/an-increasing-population-is-a-good-thing-so-is-immigration.thtml) By ALEX MASSIEFRIDAY | Spectator
Plenty of folk seem to think otherwise. Including George Bridges who has written a very curious post for the Motherblog in which he seems most perturbed by the prospect of this happy isle's population increasing. He even suggests he's not doing his bit since Mrs Bridges is expecting their third child, presumably furthering the onrushing demographic apocalypse.
Piffle. Good for Mrs Bridges and her fecund husband. Congratulations to them. May they produce this and many more little Bridges. A rising population is a feature of a healthy society, not the beginning of the end for this sceptered land. Of course an increasing population puts pressure on any number of public facilities and services, from transport to schools to housing to hospitals. But so what? It's also a motor for future economic growth which will - hurrah! - provide for all of this. Excess capacity caused by an absence of demand is, as many a rural parish will tell you, a much more grievous problem than having too many people. There is no need for this "for we are too many" Jude the Obscure stuff. There really isn't.
Mr Bridges concludes, darkly:
Cameron, Theresa May and Damian Green have made a good start at controlling immigration. But that�s just a start. More needs to be done to educate the public about the challenge. We need some radical thinking about how we solve it; and we must ask ourselves whether a state that was largely constructed to cope with 50 million people can meet the challenges of 70 million people?
Really? The logic of this position leads us to China's one-child policy. Is that really what those obsessed with population figures want to see? If not, perhaps they can tell us what the optimal UK population figure might be and how they propose to "cap" the number of people living in this country at that number?
OK, let us suppose that, ill-advisedly, the government reduces immigration to "zero". What then? Do you, as I say, limit the number of children people may have? Or do you pay people to emigrate so the population remains beneath your arbitrarily-decided "ideal" figure? Would that be enough? Probably not! There could be back-street, clandestine babies born every day!
Seriously, do these people think a falling population would be a good thing? Perhaps they do. Population decline is rarely the sign of a healthy society. Rarely? Never seems more probable. Factor in the reality that the existing population is increasingly elderly and it becomes clear, surely, that Britain will need more people. The alternative is fewer and fewer workers providing for more and more pensioners and, by doing so, ensuring that their own futures are bleaker than they need be. Suggesting that population growth is so very dangerous is, essentially, to demand much higher taxes on today's teenagers and their future. What's just about that?
So it's good that Mr and Mrs Bridges are spawning again. But their efforts, no matter how heroic, will not be enough. Which is another reason why immigration is a good thing not the beginning of the end. We need more people so we can cope with the costs of an increasingly wrinkly population.
This is the self-interested justification for more immigration (since not everyone is as selfless as the Bridges when it comes to healthy birth-rates) though of course there are many other, more altruistic and even noble grounds for welcoming a come-all-ye approach to these matters. To be born or live in Britain is to have access to opportunities and riches that are the stuff of dreams for most of the world's population. We should allow more people from other lands to have those chances.
That will be good for them and it will be necessary - and good - for us too. Sure, there are problems and strains and pressures associated with immigration and population growth but they're not nearly so terrifying as the prospect of a geriatric and closed society working its few remaining young people to the bone with little to no regard for the future well-being of the people supporting the oldies. Those obsessed by population figures should be asked what they consider to be the ideal worker:retiree ratio.
Again, and really it cannot be stressed enough, in the developed world a growing population is a mark of success, not failure.
Still, if you do think there's an imminent population crisis, there is one more option available to you: compulsory euthanasia ten years after you pass the point of average life expectancy. This seems a modest enough proposal, don't you think?
Obama�s wise investment: Making life easier for 'illegals' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/obamas-wise-investment-making-life-easier-for-illegals/article2021683/) By DOUG SAUNDERS | Globe and Mail
Obama playing games with immigration (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/12/navarrette.immigration.obama/index.html) By Ruben Navarrette | CNN
Gutless politicians are broken, not the immigration system (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/gutless-politicians-are-broken-not-immigration-system) By Greg Kane | Examiner
The Muslim-American: reclaiming my identity (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110514a1.html) By ARSHAD CHOWDHURY | The Japan Times
Plenty of folk seem to think otherwise. Including George Bridges who has written a very curious post for the Motherblog in which he seems most perturbed by the prospect of this happy isle's population increasing. He even suggests he's not doing his bit since Mrs Bridges is expecting their third child, presumably furthering the onrushing demographic apocalypse.
Piffle. Good for Mrs Bridges and her fecund husband. Congratulations to them. May they produce this and many more little Bridges. A rising population is a feature of a healthy society, not the beginning of the end for this sceptered land. Of course an increasing population puts pressure on any number of public facilities and services, from transport to schools to housing to hospitals. But so what? It's also a motor for future economic growth which will - hurrah! - provide for all of this. Excess capacity caused by an absence of demand is, as many a rural parish will tell you, a much more grievous problem than having too many people. There is no need for this "for we are too many" Jude the Obscure stuff. There really isn't.
Mr Bridges concludes, darkly:
Cameron, Theresa May and Damian Green have made a good start at controlling immigration. But that�s just a start. More needs to be done to educate the public about the challenge. We need some radical thinking about how we solve it; and we must ask ourselves whether a state that was largely constructed to cope with 50 million people can meet the challenges of 70 million people?
Really? The logic of this position leads us to China's one-child policy. Is that really what those obsessed with population figures want to see? If not, perhaps they can tell us what the optimal UK population figure might be and how they propose to "cap" the number of people living in this country at that number?
OK, let us suppose that, ill-advisedly, the government reduces immigration to "zero". What then? Do you, as I say, limit the number of children people may have? Or do you pay people to emigrate so the population remains beneath your arbitrarily-decided "ideal" figure? Would that be enough? Probably not! There could be back-street, clandestine babies born every day!
Seriously, do these people think a falling population would be a good thing? Perhaps they do. Population decline is rarely the sign of a healthy society. Rarely? Never seems more probable. Factor in the reality that the existing population is increasingly elderly and it becomes clear, surely, that Britain will need more people. The alternative is fewer and fewer workers providing for more and more pensioners and, by doing so, ensuring that their own futures are bleaker than they need be. Suggesting that population growth is so very dangerous is, essentially, to demand much higher taxes on today's teenagers and their future. What's just about that?
So it's good that Mr and Mrs Bridges are spawning again. But their efforts, no matter how heroic, will not be enough. Which is another reason why immigration is a good thing not the beginning of the end. We need more people so we can cope with the costs of an increasingly wrinkly population.
This is the self-interested justification for more immigration (since not everyone is as selfless as the Bridges when it comes to healthy birth-rates) though of course there are many other, more altruistic and even noble grounds for welcoming a come-all-ye approach to these matters. To be born or live in Britain is to have access to opportunities and riches that are the stuff of dreams for most of the world's population. We should allow more people from other lands to have those chances.
That will be good for them and it will be necessary - and good - for us too. Sure, there are problems and strains and pressures associated with immigration and population growth but they're not nearly so terrifying as the prospect of a geriatric and closed society working its few remaining young people to the bone with little to no regard for the future well-being of the people supporting the oldies. Those obsessed by population figures should be asked what they consider to be the ideal worker:retiree ratio.
Again, and really it cannot be stressed enough, in the developed world a growing population is a mark of success, not failure.
Still, if you do think there's an imminent population crisis, there is one more option available to you: compulsory euthanasia ten years after you pass the point of average life expectancy. This seems a modest enough proposal, don't you think?
Obama�s wise investment: Making life easier for 'illegals' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/obamas-wise-investment-making-life-easier-for-illegals/article2021683/) By DOUG SAUNDERS | Globe and Mail
Obama playing games with immigration (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/12/navarrette.immigration.obama/index.html) By Ruben Navarrette | CNN
Gutless politicians are broken, not the immigration system (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/gutless-politicians-are-broken-not-immigration-system) By Greg Kane | Examiner
The Muslim-American: reclaiming my identity (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110514a1.html) By ARSHAD CHOWDHURY | The Japan Times
wallpaper megan fox makeup products.
sanju
04-08 10:30 PM
Make no mistake about it, IEEE-USA is not for any meaningful reform. They say that they support green card reform but actually they don’t. Otherwise they would have included some green card provisions in this bill, at least 485 filing provision. They make it look like they support green card reform because they do not want themselves to be looked upon as anti-immigrants. But that is who they are.
Just as an example: Ron Hira says that H1s drive down wages when they come and work here. If we go back, Ron Hira says H1s promote outsourcing. If we stay here, Ron Hira says we take jobs of people here. So no matter what we do, the bottom line is, IEEE-USA has a problem with people on H1. They have a problem with our existence, not just here, but anywhere. Why? Because they don't like competition from us. And here is another fact, guys lobbying for this bill are actually racist and they just warp their objective around the economic argument.
Just as an example: Ron Hira says that H1s drive down wages when they come and work here. If we go back, Ron Hira says H1s promote outsourcing. If we stay here, Ron Hira says we take jobs of people here. So no matter what we do, the bottom line is, IEEE-USA has a problem with people on H1. They have a problem with our existence, not just here, but anywhere. Why? Because they don't like competition from us. And here is another fact, guys lobbying for this bill are actually racist and they just warp their objective around the economic argument.
walking_dude
09-30 09:17 PM
After the bail-out bill failed in the House, Obama immediately posted a response reassuring Americans and investors that the leaders will come up with another soon.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
2011 megan fox makeup products.
.jpg "megan fox makeup")
perm2gc
08-11 03:52 PM
Guys
Is Dobbs a Native American?
Dobbs Wake Up.. AMERICA IS LAND OF IMMIGRANTS..
Is Dobbs a Native American?
Dobbs Wake Up.. AMERICA IS LAND OF IMMIGRANTS..
more...
validIV
06-05 11:43 AM
Sorry but no matter how you spin it, owning a home is better than renting. Renting is not smart. period. your money is gone every month. You are not getting that money back.
When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.
30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
here is a good point about long term housing prospects. I for one am glad that GC delay saved me from buying a house.
this is from an article
------------------------------------
Why do I think housing is in the tank for the long term?
First, I listen to people smarter than I am - a key to success from investing to recreation league baseball. When my rec team had its first losing season - after twelve consecutive great seasons (two per year) I did the logical and hired a professional coach. They were winners the next season. Ditto for analyzing stuff - and I follow Ivy Zelman and Whitney Tilson. They have been dead on about the mortgage meltdown - and see a larger one coming.
Listening to them, reading data and being objective has led me to see the key to a rebound in housing is clearing inventory - too much supply and too little demand, and since lower than five percent interest rates have not spurred buying, supply is the issue. Supply comes from the sale of existing homes, the sale of new homes, and the sale of foreclosed homes.
* Typically ten to fifteen percent of Americans sell or want to sell their home in a given year. Recent survey data shows the number is now 30%. Keep that in mind.
* New home sales are incredibly low. Market wisdom said home building stocks would rise once the new housing start rate hit a million and inventory became tight. New home starts are roughly half of that and there ain't no rebound. As the poet said, times, they be a changing.
* People are not selling, and builders are not building, not just because people are not buying - it is because prices are low and going lower and the driver here is foreclosures. Data can be found here, there and everywhere but the salient data points are a) banks are accelerating foreclosures, b) the next wave of resets of mortgages, the cause of most foreclosures, does not peak until the summer of 2011, c) banks are already sitting on more than half a million homes they have not listed for sale, and the whopper is d) the New York Times has reported that there are nineteen million empty housing units and only six million are listed for sale.
This last point, when combined with another couple of million foreclosed homes, then with desire for people wanting to sell their home as soon as they can, means excess inventory for as far as the eye can see. I originally projected housing prices would, nationally, bottom at the end of 2011 and prices would begin to pick up in mid 2012. I may have been premature. With resets peaking in mid defaults will probably peak in early Q4 2011; this means foreclosure listings will peak in mid-summer 2012, after the peak selling season, not good for managing down inventory. Assuming demand picks up - a near heroic assumption at this time as interest rates will be higher and unemployment could be the same or higher at that time - you will start to see inventory declining in a meaningful way until 2013 at the earliest.
I have focused on supply - was I too cavalier about demand? Well, that is more problematic - resets, defaults and foreclosures are fourth grade math and although the only thing I knew about housing was my own mortgage before this mess started, I can do fourth grade math and every forecast I have made about foreclosures and inventory has been right within a 30-45 day period.
Using fourth grade math as our primary tool does have value in estimating demand. Roughly 40% of demand in the peak year - 2006 - was sub-prime or near sub-prime - and these buyers are out of the market for a considerable period of time. And a very large percentage - some analysts estimate as high as a third - of all sales were for investment and second homes. Most of this demand is gone for the foreseeable future. Add tightening credit standards, recession ravaged incomes and personal balance sheets, and a new frugality and it is hard to see demand in 2013 or 2014 climbing past 50% of demand in 2006. Even if the FHA does not go bust - which it will, requiring another Treasury bailout.
When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.
30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
here is a good point about long term housing prospects. I for one am glad that GC delay saved me from buying a house.
this is from an article
------------------------------------
Why do I think housing is in the tank for the long term?
First, I listen to people smarter than I am - a key to success from investing to recreation league baseball. When my rec team had its first losing season - after twelve consecutive great seasons (two per year) I did the logical and hired a professional coach. They were winners the next season. Ditto for analyzing stuff - and I follow Ivy Zelman and Whitney Tilson. They have been dead on about the mortgage meltdown - and see a larger one coming.
Listening to them, reading data and being objective has led me to see the key to a rebound in housing is clearing inventory - too much supply and too little demand, and since lower than five percent interest rates have not spurred buying, supply is the issue. Supply comes from the sale of existing homes, the sale of new homes, and the sale of foreclosed homes.
* Typically ten to fifteen percent of Americans sell or want to sell their home in a given year. Recent survey data shows the number is now 30%. Keep that in mind.
* New home sales are incredibly low. Market wisdom said home building stocks would rise once the new housing start rate hit a million and inventory became tight. New home starts are roughly half of that and there ain't no rebound. As the poet said, times, they be a changing.
* People are not selling, and builders are not building, not just because people are not buying - it is because prices are low and going lower and the driver here is foreclosures. Data can be found here, there and everywhere but the salient data points are a) banks are accelerating foreclosures, b) the next wave of resets of mortgages, the cause of most foreclosures, does not peak until the summer of 2011, c) banks are already sitting on more than half a million homes they have not listed for sale, and the whopper is d) the New York Times has reported that there are nineteen million empty housing units and only six million are listed for sale.
This last point, when combined with another couple of million foreclosed homes, then with desire for people wanting to sell their home as soon as they can, means excess inventory for as far as the eye can see. I originally projected housing prices would, nationally, bottom at the end of 2011 and prices would begin to pick up in mid 2012. I may have been premature. With resets peaking in mid defaults will probably peak in early Q4 2011; this means foreclosure listings will peak in mid-summer 2012, after the peak selling season, not good for managing down inventory. Assuming demand picks up - a near heroic assumption at this time as interest rates will be higher and unemployment could be the same or higher at that time - you will start to see inventory declining in a meaningful way until 2013 at the earliest.
I have focused on supply - was I too cavalier about demand? Well, that is more problematic - resets, defaults and foreclosures are fourth grade math and although the only thing I knew about housing was my own mortgage before this mess started, I can do fourth grade math and every forecast I have made about foreclosures and inventory has been right within a 30-45 day period.
Using fourth grade math as our primary tool does have value in estimating demand. Roughly 40% of demand in the peak year - 2006 - was sub-prime or near sub-prime - and these buyers are out of the market for a considerable period of time. And a very large percentage - some analysts estimate as high as a third - of all sales were for investment and second homes. Most of this demand is gone for the foreseeable future. Add tightening credit standards, recession ravaged incomes and personal balance sheets, and a new frugality and it is hard to see demand in 2013 or 2014 climbing past 50% of demand in 2006. Even if the FHA does not go bust - which it will, requiring another Treasury bailout.
isedkeem
01-09 06:03 PM
when you have two sides claiming two opposite stories, it is not reasonable to have one side be the defendant and the judge at the same time.
The UN and International Red Cross who are on the ground there declared the Israeli claims of militants in the bombed civilian areas bogus.. foreign journalist might have confirmed that too (ah.. forgot that Israel banned foreign journalists from entering Gaza.. wonder why?)
If we dismiss independent testimony just because the defendent says so, every criminal will go get a free hand.. plz let me hear ur logic for doing that
The question is about common sense and not who said what... Israel might make mistakes but it has no need to bomb civilians or school compounds deliberately. It is a strong enough country that can wipe out the entire middle-east if it chose to but it does not do so probably because it isn't a failed state with an inferiority complex like most of its neighbors.
The UN and International Red Cross who are on the ground there declared the Israeli claims of militants in the bombed civilian areas bogus.. foreign journalist might have confirmed that too (ah.. forgot that Israel banned foreign journalists from entering Gaza.. wonder why?)
If we dismiss independent testimony just because the defendent says so, every criminal will go get a free hand.. plz let me hear ur logic for doing that
The question is about common sense and not who said what... Israel might make mistakes but it has no need to bomb civilians or school compounds deliberately. It is a strong enough country that can wipe out the entire middle-east if it chose to but it does not do so probably because it isn't a failed state with an inferiority complex like most of its neighbors.
more...
Macaca
12-27 06:50 PM
A crucial connection (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/A-crucial-connection/articleshow/7173785.cms) By Michael Kugelman | Times of India
With India's soaring growth and rising global clout hogging media headlines, it is easy to forget the nation is beset by security challenges. Naxalite insurgency rages across more than two-thirds of India's states, while long-simmering tensions in J&K exploded once again this summer. Meanwhile, two years post-Mumbai, Pakistan remains unwilling or unable to dismantle the anti-India militant groups on its soil. Finally, China's military rise continues unabated. As Beijing increases its activities across the Himalayan and Indian Ocean regions, fears about Chinese encirclement are rife.
It is even easier to forget that these challenges are intertwined with natural resource issues. Policy makers in New Delhi often fail to make this connection, at their own peril. Twenty-five per cent of Indians lack access to clean drinking water; about 40 per cent have no electricity. These constraints intensify security problems.
India's immense energy needs - household and commercial - have deepened its dependence on coal, its most heavily consumed energy source. But India's main coal reserves are located in Naxalite bastions. With energy security at stake, New Delhi has a powerful incentive to flush out insurgents. It has done so with heavy-handed shows of force that often trigger civilian casualties. Additionally, intensive coal mining has displaced locals and created toxic living conditions for those who remain. All these outcomes boost support for the insurgency.
Meanwhile, the fruits of this heavy resource extraction elude local communities, fuelling grievances that Naxalites exploit. A similar dynamic plays out in J&K, where electricity-deficient residents decry the paltry proportion of power they receive from central government-owned hydroelectric companies. In both cases, resource inequities are a spark for violent anti-government fervour.
Resource constraints also inflame India's tensions with Pakistan and China. As economic growth and energy demand have accelerated, India has increased its construction of hydropower projects on the western rivers of the Indus Basin - waters that, while allocated to Pakistan by the Indus Waters Treaty, may be harnessed by India for run-of-the-river hydro facilities. Pakistani militants, however, do not make such distinctions. Lashkar-e-Taiba repeatedly lashes out at India's alleged "water theft". Lashkar, capitalising on Pakistan's acute water crisis (it has Asia's lowest per capita water availability), may well use water as a pretext for future attacks on India.
Oil and natural gas are resource catalysts for conflict with China. Due to insufficient energy supplies at home, India is launching aggressive efforts to secure hydrocarbons abroad. This race brings New Delhi into fierce competition with Beijing, whose growing presence in the Indian Ocean region is driven in large part by its own search for natural resources.
India's inability to prevent Chinese energy deals with Myanmar (and its worries about similar future arrangements in Sri Lanka) feeds fears about Chinese encirclement, but also emboldens India to take its energy hunt further afield. Strategists now cite the protection of faraway future energy holdings as a core motivation for naval modernisation plans; India's energy investments already extend from the Middle East and Africa to Latin America. Such reach exposes India to new vulnerabilities, underscoring the imperative of enhanced sea-based energy transit protection capabilities.
While sea-related China-India tensions revolve around energy, land-based discord is tied to water. South Asia holds less than 5 per cent of annual global renewable water resources, but China-India border tensions centre around the region's rare water-rich areas, particularly Arunachal Pradesh. Additionally, Chinese dam-building on Tibetan Plateau rivers - including the mighty Brahmaputra - alarms lower-riparian India. With many Chinese agricultural areas water-scarce, and India supporting nearly 20 per cent of the world's population with only 4 per cent of its water, neither nation takes such disputes lightly.
India's resource constraints, impelled by population growth and climate change, will likely worsen in the years ahead. Recent estimates envision water deficits of 50 per cent by 2030 and outright scarcity by 2050, if not earlier. Meanwhile, India is expected to become the world's third-largest energy consumer by 2030, when the country could import 50 per cent of its natural gas and a staggering 90 per cent of its oil. If such projections prove accurate, the impact on national security could be devastating.
So what can be done? First, New Delhi must integrate natural resource considerations into security policy and planning. India's navy, with its goal of developing a blue-water force to safeguard energy resources overseas, has planted an initial seed. Yet much more must be done, and progress can be made only when policy makers better understand the destabilising effects of resource constraints. Second, India should acknowledge its poor resource governance, and craft demand-side, conservation-based policies that better manage precious - but not scarce - resources. This means improved maintenance of water infrastructure (40 per cent of water in most Indian cities is lost to pipeline leaks), more equitable resource allocations, and stronger incentives for implementing water- and energy-efficient technologies (like drip irrigation) and policies (like rainwater harvesting).
Such steps will not make India's security challenges disappear, but they will make the security situation less perilous. And they will move the country closer to the day when resource efficiency and equity join military modernisation and counterinsurgency as India's security watchwords.
The writer is programme asso-ciate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC
What They Said: Rooting for Binayak Sen (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/27/what-they-said-press-activists-root-for-binayak-sen/) By Krishna Pokharel | IndiaRealTime
Indian government criticised for human rights activist's life sentence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/26/amnesty-criticises-sen-life-sentence) By Jason Burke | The Guardian
With India's soaring growth and rising global clout hogging media headlines, it is easy to forget the nation is beset by security challenges. Naxalite insurgency rages across more than two-thirds of India's states, while long-simmering tensions in J&K exploded once again this summer. Meanwhile, two years post-Mumbai, Pakistan remains unwilling or unable to dismantle the anti-India militant groups on its soil. Finally, China's military rise continues unabated. As Beijing increases its activities across the Himalayan and Indian Ocean regions, fears about Chinese encirclement are rife.
It is even easier to forget that these challenges are intertwined with natural resource issues. Policy makers in New Delhi often fail to make this connection, at their own peril. Twenty-five per cent of Indians lack access to clean drinking water; about 40 per cent have no electricity. These constraints intensify security problems.
India's immense energy needs - household and commercial - have deepened its dependence on coal, its most heavily consumed energy source. But India's main coal reserves are located in Naxalite bastions. With energy security at stake, New Delhi has a powerful incentive to flush out insurgents. It has done so with heavy-handed shows of force that often trigger civilian casualties. Additionally, intensive coal mining has displaced locals and created toxic living conditions for those who remain. All these outcomes boost support for the insurgency.
Meanwhile, the fruits of this heavy resource extraction elude local communities, fuelling grievances that Naxalites exploit. A similar dynamic plays out in J&K, where electricity-deficient residents decry the paltry proportion of power they receive from central government-owned hydroelectric companies. In both cases, resource inequities are a spark for violent anti-government fervour.
Resource constraints also inflame India's tensions with Pakistan and China. As economic growth and energy demand have accelerated, India has increased its construction of hydropower projects on the western rivers of the Indus Basin - waters that, while allocated to Pakistan by the Indus Waters Treaty, may be harnessed by India for run-of-the-river hydro facilities. Pakistani militants, however, do not make such distinctions. Lashkar-e-Taiba repeatedly lashes out at India's alleged "water theft". Lashkar, capitalising on Pakistan's acute water crisis (it has Asia's lowest per capita water availability), may well use water as a pretext for future attacks on India.
Oil and natural gas are resource catalysts for conflict with China. Due to insufficient energy supplies at home, India is launching aggressive efforts to secure hydrocarbons abroad. This race brings New Delhi into fierce competition with Beijing, whose growing presence in the Indian Ocean region is driven in large part by its own search for natural resources.
India's inability to prevent Chinese energy deals with Myanmar (and its worries about similar future arrangements in Sri Lanka) feeds fears about Chinese encirclement, but also emboldens India to take its energy hunt further afield. Strategists now cite the protection of faraway future energy holdings as a core motivation for naval modernisation plans; India's energy investments already extend from the Middle East and Africa to Latin America. Such reach exposes India to new vulnerabilities, underscoring the imperative of enhanced sea-based energy transit protection capabilities.
While sea-related China-India tensions revolve around energy, land-based discord is tied to water. South Asia holds less than 5 per cent of annual global renewable water resources, but China-India border tensions centre around the region's rare water-rich areas, particularly Arunachal Pradesh. Additionally, Chinese dam-building on Tibetan Plateau rivers - including the mighty Brahmaputra - alarms lower-riparian India. With many Chinese agricultural areas water-scarce, and India supporting nearly 20 per cent of the world's population with only 4 per cent of its water, neither nation takes such disputes lightly.
India's resource constraints, impelled by population growth and climate change, will likely worsen in the years ahead. Recent estimates envision water deficits of 50 per cent by 2030 and outright scarcity by 2050, if not earlier. Meanwhile, India is expected to become the world's third-largest energy consumer by 2030, when the country could import 50 per cent of its natural gas and a staggering 90 per cent of its oil. If such projections prove accurate, the impact on national security could be devastating.
So what can be done? First, New Delhi must integrate natural resource considerations into security policy and planning. India's navy, with its goal of developing a blue-water force to safeguard energy resources overseas, has planted an initial seed. Yet much more must be done, and progress can be made only when policy makers better understand the destabilising effects of resource constraints. Second, India should acknowledge its poor resource governance, and craft demand-side, conservation-based policies that better manage precious - but not scarce - resources. This means improved maintenance of water infrastructure (40 per cent of water in most Indian cities is lost to pipeline leaks), more equitable resource allocations, and stronger incentives for implementing water- and energy-efficient technologies (like drip irrigation) and policies (like rainwater harvesting).
Such steps will not make India's security challenges disappear, but they will make the security situation less perilous. And they will move the country closer to the day when resource efficiency and equity join military modernisation and counterinsurgency as India's security watchwords.
The writer is programme asso-ciate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC
What They Said: Rooting for Binayak Sen (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/27/what-they-said-press-activists-root-for-binayak-sen/) By Krishna Pokharel | IndiaRealTime
Indian government criticised for human rights activist's life sentence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/26/amnesty-criticises-sen-life-sentence) By Jason Burke | The Guardian
2010 megan fox makeup products.
mariner5555
03-27 07:26 AM
Unfortunately, there are no simple answers. Mortgage rates are tied to 10 year bond rate, so they generally are not affected much by short term fed rate. With credit crunch, bond market is in real bad shape.
Fed is trying to supply short term funds to ease this crunch. I don't know how low Fed will go for this. What I am seeing is mortgage rates being stable or going down a little in near term bcoz of Fed easing. For long term, I believe rates will go up as bonds have to become attractive to get new investors.This may not be the best ( absolute bottom) but definitely very good time to refinance if it makes sense for your conditions.
For first time buyers like me, there are a lot of parameters to be considered. In my opinion the parameters are tilted towards faster house price drop . Hence I am waiting at least for a year. I will not do anything till next spring.
> Hence I am waiting at least for a year. I will not do anything till next spring.
Perfect ....exactly the same timeline for me too. I guess by that time GC picture and economy picture will be more clear too !!
This is from CEO of Lennar builders
------------
"Lower consumer confidence has quieted demand among prospective homebuyers and deterred them from a buying decision, while contraction in the lending markets has reduced the availability of credit for those prospective homebuyers that do wish to buy a home," CEO Stuart Miller said in a statement.
Miller added that the glut of homes on the market continues to rise due to foreclosures and homeowners who have been forced to dump homes they can no longer afford.
"The housing industry continues to be impacted by an unfavorable supply and demand relationship, which restricts the volume of new home sales and, concurrently, depresses home prices in most markets across the country," he said.
--------------
Fed is trying to supply short term funds to ease this crunch. I don't know how low Fed will go for this. What I am seeing is mortgage rates being stable or going down a little in near term bcoz of Fed easing. For long term, I believe rates will go up as bonds have to become attractive to get new investors.This may not be the best ( absolute bottom) but definitely very good time to refinance if it makes sense for your conditions.
For first time buyers like me, there are a lot of parameters to be considered. In my opinion the parameters are tilted towards faster house price drop . Hence I am waiting at least for a year. I will not do anything till next spring.
> Hence I am waiting at least for a year. I will not do anything till next spring.
Perfect ....exactly the same timeline for me too. I guess by that time GC picture and economy picture will be more clear too !!
This is from CEO of Lennar builders
------------
"Lower consumer confidence has quieted demand among prospective homebuyers and deterred them from a buying decision, while contraction in the lending markets has reduced the availability of credit for those prospective homebuyers that do wish to buy a home," CEO Stuart Miller said in a statement.
Miller added that the glut of homes on the market continues to rise due to foreclosures and homeowners who have been forced to dump homes they can no longer afford.
"The housing industry continues to be impacted by an unfavorable supply and demand relationship, which restricts the volume of new home sales and, concurrently, depresses home prices in most markets across the country," he said.
--------------
more...
amitga
01-28 10:33 AM
There has never been a mention of the H1b visas approved and those that do not fall under the quota....
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
Can't Lou be sued for intentionally having false information in his book. At lease we should all add negative comments about his book on Amazon.com reviews. His book rating on Amazon is 4 and we should add 30-40 comments to bring the rating to at least 2-3 star.
Lou's Book (http://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-Class-Government-Business/dp/0670037923/sr=8-1/qid=1170001461/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9355488-1919237?ie=UTF8&s=books)
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
Can't Lou be sued for intentionally having false information in his book. At lease we should all add negative comments about his book on Amazon.com reviews. His book rating on Amazon is 4 and we should add 30-40 comments to bring the rating to at least 2-3 star.
Lou's Book (http://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-Class-Government-Business/dp/0670037923/sr=8-1/qid=1170001461/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9355488-1919237?ie=UTF8&s=books)
hair megan fox makeup
NKR
08-05 08:33 AM
The said person should have been aware of what he or she was getting into. Blaming your hardship on other people and trying to get mileage out of it is hardly an honest way............would you agree?
So an employer cheating him into applying in EB3 is an honest way?
So an employer cheating him into applying in EB3 is an honest way?
more...
santb1975
09-28 06:05 PM
After 8 yrs of Bush, I sure am ready for Democrats to take over. America needs a change. But Sen. Obama's victory will surely spell doom and gloom for the EB community - of which I am one.
I have been in the United States for 10 years - LEGALLY. I came here for my Masters and I work as a Compliance Analyst in the Pharmaceutical Industry. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy and I hope that I can settle down in this great country.
I want the Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke me up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community is making me explore opportunities outside of the United States after spending 10 years in this great land. I have little bit more time to decide what I want to do but if things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, I have made up my mind to pursue opportunities outside of the United States.
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against the EB community. My question to Sen. Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
I have been in the United States for 10 years - LEGALLY. I came here for my Masters and I work as a Compliance Analyst in the Pharmaceutical Industry. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy and I hope that I can settle down in this great country.
I want the Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke me up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community is making me explore opportunities outside of the United States after spending 10 years in this great land. I have little bit more time to decide what I want to do but if things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, I have made up my mind to pursue opportunities outside of the United States.
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against the EB community. My question to Sen. Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
hot hairstyles megan fox makeup
sanju
04-07 05:54 PM
I wonder if big names like Mircrosoft and others are aware of this. I am sure they will have a huge loss if this bill went through. May be it is time Bill Gates dropped his gloves and fight for us too.
Bill Gates is very influential but he is one man and can do only so much. I think all the forum members should become active in educating and engaging our friends and employers about this potential disaster.
Bill Gates is very influential but he is one man and can do only so much. I think all the forum members should become active in educating and engaging our friends and employers about this potential disaster.
more...
house Megan Fox in hairstyle makeup
riva2005
04-06 08:31 PM
What's going on here is that approx there are 500,000 people on H1B visas in this country.
If Anti-H1 crowd propose a bill to throw all of them out, people will laugh at them and ask them to get lost.
So what the anti-H1 crowd has done here is "Slow bleed" as described by admin. Get rid of 8000-10,000 H1Bs out of the country each month. That way, the impact will slow and it wont send any shockwaves. IF existing H1s go to renew their H1 and the new rules apply, half of them wont fit in the new rules of "You cannot do consulting". So they will have to go back.
These guys are trying to do what UK did to Indian and Chinese doctors. They want all of us to go back. Only difference between what UK did to doctors and what these guys want to do to us is that these guys are smarter and they are trying to get this done in slow motion. IF they take Tancredo like approach of "Everyone out, and shut the door", then it wont work.
They have learned from Tancredo's mistake and now have adoped this slow bleed strategy of getting rid of their competition.
Basically, they want the 1990s back. They want to roam in job market with foriegn competition, where even high-school drop-outs can get jobs of $100,000 a year by writing 20 lines of code per week.
Man up you xenophobes. Face the competition and stop being whiny boys running to Grassley and Sessions every time you lose jobs. Get a job and get a life. Unemployment rate is 4.4 %. If you cant find jobs right now, dont blame H1B employees. Something is wrong with you.
If Anti-H1 crowd propose a bill to throw all of them out, people will laugh at them and ask them to get lost.
So what the anti-H1 crowd has done here is "Slow bleed" as described by admin. Get rid of 8000-10,000 H1Bs out of the country each month. That way, the impact will slow and it wont send any shockwaves. IF existing H1s go to renew their H1 and the new rules apply, half of them wont fit in the new rules of "You cannot do consulting". So they will have to go back.
These guys are trying to do what UK did to Indian and Chinese doctors. They want all of us to go back. Only difference between what UK did to doctors and what these guys want to do to us is that these guys are smarter and they are trying to get this done in slow motion. IF they take Tancredo like approach of "Everyone out, and shut the door", then it wont work.
They have learned from Tancredo's mistake and now have adoped this slow bleed strategy of getting rid of their competition.
Basically, they want the 1990s back. They want to roam in job market with foriegn competition, where even high-school drop-outs can get jobs of $100,000 a year by writing 20 lines of code per week.
Man up you xenophobes. Face the competition and stop being whiny boys running to Grassley and Sessions every time you lose jobs. Get a job and get a life. Unemployment rate is 4.4 %. If you cant find jobs right now, dont blame H1B employees. Something is wrong with you.
tattoo Megan Fox Makeup Look
xyzgc
01-09 06:58 PM
Online Israel-Hamas war
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478626,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478626,00.html
more...
pictures megan fox makeup products.
raj2007
04-12 08:10 PM
For those of you who think housing will always go up and those that think it will back in few years..
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7322611&ch=4226720&src=news
I don't think it's good time to buy in CA.. Just wait for option ARM reset and market will drop more.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7322611&ch=4226720&src=news
I don't think it's good time to buy in CA.. Just wait for option ARM reset and market will drop more.
dresses house megan fox makeup
GCBatman
01-06 01:04 PM
Please provide proof(example) to support your allegation that "IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam"
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
more...
makeup megan fox makeup products
rsdang
08-11 04:56 PM
One day, in line at the company cafeteria, Joe says to Mike behind him, "My elbow hurts like hell. I guess I'd better see a doctor."
"Listen, you don't have to spend that kind of money," Mike replies. "There's a diagnostic computer down at Wal-Mart. Just give it a urine sample and the computer will tell you what's wrong and what to do about it. It takes ten seconds and costs ten dollars . A lot cheaper than a doctor."
So, Joe deposits a urine sample in a small jar and takes it to Wal-Mart.
He deposits ten dollars, and the computer lights up and asks for the urine sample. He pours the sample into the slot and waits.
Ten seconds later, the computer ejects a printout:
"You have tennis elbow. Soak your arm in warm water and avoid heavy activity. It will improve in two weeks. Thank you for shopping @ Wal-Mart." That evening, while thinking how amazing this new technology was, Joe began wondering if the computer could be fooled.
He mixed some tap water, a stool sample from his dog, urine samples from his wife and daughter, and a sperm sample for good measure.
Joe hurries back to Wal-Mart, eager to check the results. He deposits ten dollars, pours in his concoction, and awaits the results.
The computer prints the following:
1. Your tap water is too hard. Get a water softener. (Aisle 9)
2. Your dog has ringworm. Bathe him with anti-fungal shampoo. (Aisle 7)
3. Your daughter has a cocaine habit. Get her into rehab.
4. Your wife is pregnant. Twins. They aren't yours. Get a lawyer.
5. If you don't stop playing with yourself, your elbow will never get better!
:D
"Listen, you don't have to spend that kind of money," Mike replies. "There's a diagnostic computer down at Wal-Mart. Just give it a urine sample and the computer will tell you what's wrong and what to do about it. It takes ten seconds and costs ten dollars . A lot cheaper than a doctor."
So, Joe deposits a urine sample in a small jar and takes it to Wal-Mart.
He deposits ten dollars, and the computer lights up and asks for the urine sample. He pours the sample into the slot and waits.
Ten seconds later, the computer ejects a printout:
"You have tennis elbow. Soak your arm in warm water and avoid heavy activity. It will improve in two weeks. Thank you for shopping @ Wal-Mart." That evening, while thinking how amazing this new technology was, Joe began wondering if the computer could be fooled.
He mixed some tap water, a stool sample from his dog, urine samples from his wife and daughter, and a sperm sample for good measure.
Joe hurries back to Wal-Mart, eager to check the results. He deposits ten dollars, pours in his concoction, and awaits the results.
The computer prints the following:
1. Your tap water is too hard. Get a water softener. (Aisle 9)
2. Your dog has ringworm. Bathe him with anti-fungal shampoo. (Aisle 7)
3. Your daughter has a cocaine habit. Get her into rehab.
4. Your wife is pregnant. Twins. They aren't yours. Get a lawyer.
5. If you don't stop playing with yourself, your elbow will never get better!
:D
girlfriend megan fox makeup products. por
nk2006
03-24 12:53 PM
Do you guys look around at all of immigration.
EB people are generally the only non immigrant to immigratn class of people who are allowed to stay in USA while they wait for greencard.
Almost all others have to wait outside USA for many years and cannot take benefit of what this country has to offer.
You are wrong - many other categories are allowed to be adjusted to the status while being in the country. For example look into latest CSR report - you will know that in year 2007, USCIS adjusted 621,047 foreign nationals to LPR status among this number EB's are only around 160K remaining or in other statuses.
You could be a phillipino brother/sister of US citizen and wait 23 years to get your number called.
You could be here from Liberia as temporary resident for the last 20 years and have to keep getting extensions for temporary status and one day it gets taken away from you.
Sorry to tell you but the way you guys define pain is not pain when it comes to most immigration matters when compares overall.
The family based immigration is important and can be very painful for some cases - like spouses and sons/daughters - and that is why congress has correctly amended laws to make these cases as exceptions (there are no numerical limits and also no country quotas). That was a correct thing to do and any wait in those relationships is much more painful. But for other categories in the family based immigration - like the cases you gave as examples (like brother and sister of a US citizen) - I dont really consider them as more painful than ours actually I dont even consider them as even comparable to ours. I dont know your case, but I came to US in late nineties with couple graduage degrees and acquired one more here - started my career here and justifiably feel that I considerably contributed to success of atleast one company which grew to 200+ people at one point. I emotionally and careerwise invested here. Now after 10+ years still no greencard and know how many career moves I had to let go becuase of this. While the decision to pursue the greencard is mine and I am not trying to blame anyone here, I dont think that our pain is less than someone who is "waiting" because his brother or sister sponsored him/her doesnt make sense (note: well I do have brother and sister and cherish those relationships but expecting a lifelong/career move based on their location of living is not there; and even if there is an expectation I wont consider that even comparable to someone living there and letting go many opportunities despite of talent just because of administrative issues).
You are right - things are getting worse - there may not be any congressional activity on this issue for sometime and if USCIS try to screw us in other ways - then its going to be a rough ride. But the EB community activism (congressional or otherwise) will actually help in at least staying things more fair towards us.
EB people are generally the only non immigrant to immigratn class of people who are allowed to stay in USA while they wait for greencard.
Almost all others have to wait outside USA for many years and cannot take benefit of what this country has to offer.
You are wrong - many other categories are allowed to be adjusted to the status while being in the country. For example look into latest CSR report - you will know that in year 2007, USCIS adjusted 621,047 foreign nationals to LPR status among this number EB's are only around 160K remaining or in other statuses.
You could be a phillipino brother/sister of US citizen and wait 23 years to get your number called.
You could be here from Liberia as temporary resident for the last 20 years and have to keep getting extensions for temporary status and one day it gets taken away from you.
Sorry to tell you but the way you guys define pain is not pain when it comes to most immigration matters when compares overall.
The family based immigration is important and can be very painful for some cases - like spouses and sons/daughters - and that is why congress has correctly amended laws to make these cases as exceptions (there are no numerical limits and also no country quotas). That was a correct thing to do and any wait in those relationships is much more painful. But for other categories in the family based immigration - like the cases you gave as examples (like brother and sister of a US citizen) - I dont really consider them as more painful than ours actually I dont even consider them as even comparable to ours. I dont know your case, but I came to US in late nineties with couple graduage degrees and acquired one more here - started my career here and justifiably feel that I considerably contributed to success of atleast one company which grew to 200+ people at one point. I emotionally and careerwise invested here. Now after 10+ years still no greencard and know how many career moves I had to let go becuase of this. While the decision to pursue the greencard is mine and I am not trying to blame anyone here, I dont think that our pain is less than someone who is "waiting" because his brother or sister sponsored him/her doesnt make sense (note: well I do have brother and sister and cherish those relationships but expecting a lifelong/career move based on their location of living is not there; and even if there is an expectation I wont consider that even comparable to someone living there and letting go many opportunities despite of talent just because of administrative issues).
You are right - things are getting worse - there may not be any congressional activity on this issue for sometime and if USCIS try to screw us in other ways - then its going to be a rough ride. But the EB community activism (congressional or otherwise) will actually help in at least staying things more fair towards us.
hairstyles megan fox makeup products.
abracadabra102
12-27 12:24 PM
Alisa,
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Nice job and you and Alisa started a good thoughtful conversation.
I agree that war is not the best option but should not be discounted outright.
We are thinking too much of Pakistani nuclear weapons (and to some extent India's nuclear weapons as well). When Pakistan and India last tested these (1998), many experts thought these were fizzles. I could dig up one article that hints that 1998 tests are a possible fizzles.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6037992.stm
2. N. Korea tested nukes in 2006 and are definitely fizzles and these are built using the same techniques used by pakistan (AQ Khan actively involved).
3. The other important aspect of nukes is the delivery. Pakistan's capability is suspect here as well. It is not sufficient just to have warheads and missiles (made in China), they should be tied together with proper trigger mechanism and it is uncertain if China delivered this technology to Pakistan or not.
With points 1, 2 and 3, it is reasonable to assume Pakistan can not take out India even with first strike and with nuclear weapons. I definitely think India's nukes are more potent. Assuming Indian nukes are just as bad as Pakistani nukes, finally it boils down to conventional war, and Pakistan can never beat India in a long drawn out war. The simple reason is that, India has a robust manufacturing base and much more robust economy and can continue to produce weapons and support war, where as Pakistan has to stop the moment it runs out of the weapons it bought fron US and China. Pakistan can not expect military supplies from any country once the war starts.
The only way Pakistan can win over India is to destroy India completely with nuclear first strike and it would have done that already if it had the capability.
If there is a war between India and Pakistan, India wins that war with or without nukes, period. So nukes should not be a deterrent for India going to war with Pakistan.
The other point every one is making is that wars can damage India economically. Not necessarily. Look at history and you will see that many countries prospered after wars (eg. US, UK, Germany, Japan etc. post WW-II).
There is one more good reason for India-Pakistan war. The major reason for failed democracy in Pakistan is its military. A war between India and Pakistan has one outcome, India's victory and destruction/weakening of Pakistan army. With weakened military, Pakistan has a chance to develop as a democratic nation, and that is good for the entire region. Proof? look at what happened after Indo-Pak war of 1971 and Indira Gandhi created Bangladesh. There was resurgence of democracy, with Bhutto becoming prime minister until that crook Zia-ul-Huq murdered him.
But I doubt any of this will happen now. I wish Indira Gandhi is Prime minister and leading India now.
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Nice job and you and Alisa started a good thoughtful conversation.
I agree that war is not the best option but should not be discounted outright.
We are thinking too much of Pakistani nuclear weapons (and to some extent India's nuclear weapons as well). When Pakistan and India last tested these (1998), many experts thought these were fizzles. I could dig up one article that hints that 1998 tests are a possible fizzles.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6037992.stm
2. N. Korea tested nukes in 2006 and are definitely fizzles and these are built using the same techniques used by pakistan (AQ Khan actively involved).
3. The other important aspect of nukes is the delivery. Pakistan's capability is suspect here as well. It is not sufficient just to have warheads and missiles (made in China), they should be tied together with proper trigger mechanism and it is uncertain if China delivered this technology to Pakistan or not.
With points 1, 2 and 3, it is reasonable to assume Pakistan can not take out India even with first strike and with nuclear weapons. I definitely think India's nukes are more potent. Assuming Indian nukes are just as bad as Pakistani nukes, finally it boils down to conventional war, and Pakistan can never beat India in a long drawn out war. The simple reason is that, India has a robust manufacturing base and much more robust economy and can continue to produce weapons and support war, where as Pakistan has to stop the moment it runs out of the weapons it bought fron US and China. Pakistan can not expect military supplies from any country once the war starts.
The only way Pakistan can win over India is to destroy India completely with nuclear first strike and it would have done that already if it had the capability.
If there is a war between India and Pakistan, India wins that war with or without nukes, period. So nukes should not be a deterrent for India going to war with Pakistan.
The other point every one is making is that wars can damage India economically. Not necessarily. Look at history and you will see that many countries prospered after wars (eg. US, UK, Germany, Japan etc. post WW-II).
There is one more good reason for India-Pakistan war. The major reason for failed democracy in Pakistan is its military. A war between India and Pakistan has one outcome, India's victory and destruction/weakening of Pakistan army. With weakened military, Pakistan has a chance to develop as a democratic nation, and that is good for the entire region. Proof? look at what happened after Indo-Pak war of 1971 and Indira Gandhi created Bangladesh. There was resurgence of democracy, with Bhutto becoming prime minister until that crook Zia-ul-Huq murdered him.
But I doubt any of this will happen now. I wish Indira Gandhi is Prime minister and leading India now.
alisa
12-30 11:34 PM
It is preposterous to compare Mumbai attacks with a speculative India involvement in Baluchistan.
The principal actors, i.e. the actual fighters on the ground in Baluchitan are all Baluchis. Were Qasaab and his other 9 companions Kashmiris? What locus standi these west punjabi fighters have to attack Mumbai?
Baluch conflict is limited primarily to armed skirmishes between Pakitani army and BLA (and may be some other Baluch nationalist groups). In military terms it can legitimately be called fair fight because both parties are armed. But can shooting unarmed civilians in the back who are sipping coffee or eating dinner or just waiting for a train be called a fair fight? Can the rules of engagement of any country, or the morals of any religion permit that? Isn�t this a text book example of pure unadultrated terrorism.
I never suggested they Bombay and Balochistan were morally equivalent.
At some point in this thread, someone suggested that India should try to destabilize Pakistan by supporting insurgent and militant groups in Pakistan. And I had merely suggested that Pakistan already suspects India of doing that. And that there is probably some truth in it. And Pakistan supports insurgent groups in India.
Or at least, both countries keep their 'options' open by maintaining contacts with the insurgent in the other countries.
That is the vicious cycle.
As far as Bombay is concerned, I have said it before that I believe that that was an attempt to provoke India, so that the Pakistan army can be diverted to the Eastern front, and the Taalibaan/militants get some relief.
I think the Indian think tanks think that the Pakistan army was behind it. I think that the Taalibaans/Jihadists were behind it. It will be very hard to prove it one way or the other.
And war would be a disaster; like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. What amazes me is the capacity of the human mind to give in to irrationality, and vigorously advocate jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
The principal actors, i.e. the actual fighters on the ground in Baluchitan are all Baluchis. Were Qasaab and his other 9 companions Kashmiris? What locus standi these west punjabi fighters have to attack Mumbai?
Baluch conflict is limited primarily to armed skirmishes between Pakitani army and BLA (and may be some other Baluch nationalist groups). In military terms it can legitimately be called fair fight because both parties are armed. But can shooting unarmed civilians in the back who are sipping coffee or eating dinner or just waiting for a train be called a fair fight? Can the rules of engagement of any country, or the morals of any religion permit that? Isn�t this a text book example of pure unadultrated terrorism.
I never suggested they Bombay and Balochistan were morally equivalent.
At some point in this thread, someone suggested that India should try to destabilize Pakistan by supporting insurgent and militant groups in Pakistan. And I had merely suggested that Pakistan already suspects India of doing that. And that there is probably some truth in it. And Pakistan supports insurgent groups in India.
Or at least, both countries keep their 'options' open by maintaining contacts with the insurgent in the other countries.
That is the vicious cycle.
As far as Bombay is concerned, I have said it before that I believe that that was an attempt to provoke India, so that the Pakistan army can be diverted to the Eastern front, and the Taalibaan/militants get some relief.
I think the Indian think tanks think that the Pakistan army was behind it. I think that the Taalibaans/Jihadists were behind it. It will be very hard to prove it one way or the other.
And war would be a disaster; like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. What amazes me is the capacity of the human mind to give in to irrationality, and vigorously advocate jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
masaternyc
05-15 07:41 PM
I think mbdriver is absolutely right, this would stop the exploitation of greedy consultancies and every one gets a fair chance.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق