Search
 
Write
 
Forums
 
Login
"Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong; they are the ones to attain felicity".
(surah Al-Imran,ayat-104)
Image Not found for user
User Name: International_Professor
Full Name: International Professor
User since: 22/Jan/2008
No Of voices: 353
 
 Views: 2650   
 Replies: 5   
 Share with Friend  
 Post Comment  

10337.jpg not found

Obama’s “International Order” and G W Bush’s “Pre-emptive war”, an old wine in new glass.

By: International Professor

Nobel Peace prize winner Barak Husain Obama is gradually coming out of his self pro-claimed peace shell, would be more fascist than George W Bush. The dream of an “American Empire” and greed of occupation of natural resources of entire world on gun point is a matter of a few months. On May 22, 2010 Obama has announced his ambitions under camouflage of “America’s role in promoting democratic values” at U.S. Military Academy at West Port.

According to Washington Post dated May 23, 2010 (1) salient features of his latest theory of “International Order” would be as under:

"The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times," he said in prepared remarks.

1.   Countering violent extremism and insurgency.

2.   Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials.

3.   Combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth.

4.   Helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds.

He emphasised global co-operation and with the help of allies. What difference it has with the previous U.S. doctrines of “New World Order”, “World Order” and “Pre-emptive War”? Generally almost each and every thing is same revolving around Zionism, anti-Muslim and greed of control over entire world. Practically Obama is crossing all mile stones of George W Bush soaked in blood speedily, and it is not too far that his tenure of Presidency would put him equalizing with “Genghis Khan and his minaret of skulls”.

In fact polarization and monopoly of U.S. is unchallengeable because Russia and China have surrendered for vested interests and their role in implementing sanctions against Iran is an example. In third world countries authoritarian and puppet Governments have no choice except to say yes to any U.S. doctrine.

Countering Violent Extremism and Insurgency is hypocrisy of U.S. And no any nation is involved in occupations and violations of Geneva Convention more than U.S. itself. Implanting puppets on Governments is what kind of democracy it is talking about. CIA controlled Governments in Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan and many other countries were implanted against the will of their peoples.

Count acts of violence committed alone by U.S. Government are for more than Islamic extremists. It was U.S. that invaded on Iraq in 1991, a decade before 911. Later it ruined Afghanistan and Pakistan. Occupied Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq and its armed presence in puppet states like South Korea, Philippines, Japan, Germany and East European countries etc is an example that U.S. needs to clean its house first rather jumping on suppositional scenarios. 

Obama’s second point “Stopping Spread of Nuclear Weapons” is only possible when nations would not have any threat from U.S’s nuclear weapons itself. U.S. cannot think of invasion on Russia, China, U.K. or France because those have nuclear weapons.

Part of his “International Order” stating point three “Combating a changing climate” is a drama, peoples who are thinking to occupy lands in upper sphere and fighting for their shares on Arctic and Antarctic would never think about anything other than Capitalists practical approach.

Last part of new doctrine is “Helping Countries feed themselves and sustain their sick”, how U.S. could manage to help anyone when it is under debts of China worth billions of dollars, and its economy is trembling due to trillions of dollars on war expenses.

Nature lifted curtain from the true face of America when Katrina exposed slums of southern U.S. and discovered the pitiable conditions of African Americans living in those area, surprisingly still hundred thousand need help. Charity starts from home, first help poor, hungry and shelter less U.S. citizens and that can be happened if any kind hearted ruler on U.S. would ever emerge to rule on U.S. It is a joke that on one side American Marines and Air Force or CIA is killing peoples without any trial purely on assumptions with the backing of puppet rulers of other countries.

Preventing conflict and healing its wounds is only possible if U.S. would stop making enemies by killing innocent peoples on falls assumptions and deceptive intelligence reports.

 

G-8 the true allies:

On Jun 25 and 26 Canada will host G-8 summit, according to details round about one billion dollars will be spent on security of the summit, a G-20 summit would follow  and according to website following details shows alliance of 8 nations and statistics of their monopoly over rest of the world.

The G8 encompasses: 13 percent of the world population, but 61 percent of the world’s economy.

The Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States are called G-8 and the European Union would also represent at the summit. Majority is member of NATO except Russia, but Putin Government is working as friendly ally living out of NATO.

G-20 countries: The G-20 includes 19 countries – Eight G-8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, U.K. and USA) and in addition Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey and the European Union are its members.

The G-20: countries that include all of the resources of G-8 countries in the statistics of G-20:

Their resources account for 90 percent of global output, 80 percent of world trade and two-thirds of the world's population. So think what status other 155 countries have? And peoples who talk about democracy, equality, justice and human rights are living in paradise of fools.

Rapid execution of Obama’s doctrine in practical way:

According to NY Times article “U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast” (2) the Gen Petraeus has authorised the sending of US Special Operations troops to Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa.

The paper says “The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.”

The paper further says “The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive. The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions.”

Paper further says that “The directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order, signed Sept. 30, may also have helped lay a foundation for the surge of American military activity in Yemen that began three months later.”

Whether puppet Government of Pakistan has any national interest other than sucking dollars?

When Benazir was hired and sent to Pakistan to implement “World Order” but she was assassinated. The CIA planned and brought Zardari to work as “Lad of Anglo-Americans”, in her previous term she has been teaching in her speeches to educate peoples about “New World Order”.

It was misfortune of Benazir but a lottery for Zardari to show him as a “Warrior of Crusade”. He is very lucky (for the time being) that he jumped on the throne of hard worked legacy of Bhutto family like monkey along with heaps of his criminal records, and CIA implanted Generals known as “Islamabad Lads” were already looking for an American stooge and an artificial democratic camouflage. Generals were guilty of sucking round about $ 14 billion, whereas Zardari-Benazir was looking for $ 2 billion’s refuge already sucked.

General Mush who was looking dreams to become Hosni Mubarak of Pakistan, he retired most professional generals and collected heap of sycophantic creed and those are now working to sell Pakistan very cheap. The “International Order” is another lottery for Generals and Zardari mafia that are playing with the lives of ordinary peoples. In fact sole super power does not care for human lives and that is the main factor of creation of revenge seekers that are called terrorists.    

 

1.   At West Point, Obama offers new security strategy

By: Michael D. Shear, Sunday, May 23, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/22/AR2010052201586.html

2.   U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast

By: Mark Mazzetti , May 24, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html
 Reply:   U.S. planning to strike Pakistan-Washington Post says
Replied by(Ghulam_Rasool) Replied on (29/May/2010)

U.S. is planning attack in side Pakistan with the help of Pakistan Army

By GREG MILLER

May 29, 2010

The United States and Pakistan have recently established a joint military intelligence center on the outskirts of the north western city of Peshawar, and are in negotiations to set up another one near Quetta, the Pakistani city where the Afghan Taliban is based, according to the U.S. military officials.

The "fusion centers" are meant to bolster Pakistani military operations by providing direct access to U.S. intelligence, including real-time video surveillance from drones controlled by the U.S. Special Operations Command, the officials said. But in an acknowledgment of the continuing mistrust between the two governments, the officials added that both sides also see the centers as a way to keep a closer eye on one another, as well as to monitor military operations and intelligence activities in insurgent areas.

Obama said during his campaign for the presidency that he would be willing to order strikes in Pakistan, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a television interview after the Times Square attempt that "if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences."

Obama dispatched his national security adviser, James L. Jones, and CIA Director Leon Panetta to Islamabad this month to deliver a similar message to Pakistani officials, including President Asif Ali Zardari and the military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani.

The U.S. options for potential retaliatory action rely mainly on air and missile strikes, but could also employ small teams of U.S. Special Operations troops already positioned along the border with Afghanistan. One of the senior military officials said plans for military strikes in Pakistan have been revised significantly over the past several years, moving away from a "large, punitive response" to more measured plans meant to deliver retaliatory blows against specific militant groups.

The official added that there is a broad consensus in the U.S. military that airstrikes would at best erode the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and risk an irreparable rupture in the U.S. relationship with Pakistan.

The CIA has the authority to designate and strike targets in Pakistan without case-by-case approval from the White House. U.S. military forces are currently authorized to carry out unilateral strikes in Pakistan only if solid intelligence were to surface on any of three high-value targets: al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, or Taliban chief Mohammad Omar. But even in those cases, the military would need higher-level approval.

In the Peshawar fusion cell, which was set up within the last several months, Pakistanis have access to "full-motion video from different platforms," including unarmed surveillance drones, one official said.

The fusion centers also serve a broader U.S. aim: making the Pakistanis more dependent on U.S. intelligence, and less likely to curtail Predator drone patrols or other programs that draw significant public opposition.

To Pakistan, the fusion centers offer a glimpse of U.S. capabilities, as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military operations across the border. "They find out much more about what we know," one of the senior U.S. military officials said.

The fusion centers are part of a parallel U.S. military effort to intensify the pressure on the Taliban and other groups accused of directing insurgent attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. officials said that the sharing of intelligence goes both ways and that targets are monitored in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37410800/ns/world_news-washington_post/page/2/

 

 


 
 Reply:   The Obama doctrine
Replied by(International_Professor) Replied on (29/May/2010)
An editorial of Daily Times

The Obama doctrine

US President Barack Obama has unveiled a new
national security strategy that has been described as an end of the Bush anti-terror doctrine. The 52-page document outlines the policy shift in these words: “Our long-term security will not come from our ability to instil fear in other peoples, but through our capacity to speak to their hopes.” The document also assures the Muslim world that the US is not at war with them but is “at war with a specific network, al Qaeda, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the US, our allies, and partners”. Seemingly, the Obama doctrine is a break from the Bush doctrine but there is a need to analyse whether the US has actually made a departure from its imperialist designs or if it is following the same objectives in a more palatable form.

There is room to express scepticism over the new doctrine because we still see the US acting as the world’s policeman. Mr Obama’s statement that “the US must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests” is a clear indication that the US has not abandoned its war doctrine as such. ‘Necessary’ is an arbitrary term, so who is to decide whether American interests have been violated or not? The Iraq War is a glaring example of a world order based on ‘might is right’, something the Americans have bEen guilty of pursuing. Obama has not ruled out pre-emptive strikes either, the only difference being that this time around the US is willing to “seek broad international support, working with such institutions as NATO and the UN Security Council”. The theory of pre-emptive strike is not new. Powerful countries with expansionist tendencies routinely invoked this doctrine to attack just six decades ago. After the end of World War II, the principle of sovereignty of nations was one of the biggest achievements of the UN. With an increasing number of countries gaining independence, it was thought that imperialism and colonialism were things of the past. However, the new century saw the first demonstration of the old theory dressed in new clothes when the US attacked and occupied Afghanistan, albeit with UN backing, invoking the threat from al Qaeda and the Taliban in the wake of 9/11.

Human rights violations committed by the US are countless. The CIA has been actively involved in renditions around the world. Its actions have been authorised and defended by former US President George W Bush and other members of his neo-con administration. Detention centres being run by the US are notorious for abuse, torture, sexual exploitation and homicide of prisoners. Obama has failed to close Guantánamo Bay till date. The Obama administration’s posture on Iran and North Korea are not much different from that of the Bush administration either.

On the diplomacy front, the new national security document says that the US “will continue to work to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict...will continue to stand up for the universal rights of all people” yet we have seen how Israel is backed by the US even now. Thus the international community has largely remained quiet on the violations committed by the Israeli forces. The so-called ‘champion of democracy’ and ‘guardian of human rights’, the US, should not forget how its policies are wreaking havoc across the globe. Let’s hope Mr Obama takes a break from the old policies in letter and spirit instead of just using flowery words while pursuing the same venomous policies. *

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\29\story_29-5-2010_pg3_1

 


 
 Reply:   Some more reports and Haqqani appologist of Uncle Sam
Replied by(International_Professor) Replied on (28/May/2010)

US threatens to hunt down Taliban inside Pakistan

By: Kaswar Klasra | Published: May 28, 2010

ISLAMABAD – Building up more pressure on Pakistan for early operation in North Waziristan, the US has threatened to operate itself against Taliban inside the Pakistani territories in case Islamabad dillydallies on doing more in this regard.
US President Barack Hussain Obama has conveyed this message directly to his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari in his letter delivered last week by high ranking visiting American officials including CIA Chief Leon Panetta and US National Security Advisor Gen James Jones, highly placed diplomatic sources told TheNation here.
According to the sources, President Zardari has not yet replied in writing to a two-page letter that General James Jones delivered to him last week. In the first place, President Zardari during his meeting with these officials is said to have given no indication of how Pakistan would respond to the message.
It is important to mention here that the Obama administration has changed its tone and served Pakistan with a written warning after Pakistan’s former President General Pervez Musharraf’s recent visit to the US. The sources claimed that such a high-powered delegation brought that intense message from the US President after Musharraf’s dubious meetings in Washington. “The US wants Pakistan to go hard on the militants and to increase cooperation with the Americans in this regard”, the sources said conveying the sense of the letter.
According to the sources, Obama’s letter was a firmly worded impetus for Pakistan to move hard against militants but it did not give out any sort of ultimatum or deadline for pacing up operations in tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.
However, defence analysts in Islamabad interpreted the message as a fairly bald warning that unless Pakistan moves quickly to act against two Taliban groups, the United States is prepared to take a unilateral action to expand drone attacks beyond the tribal areas. They believe that the Americans would also not hesitate in carrying out raids by special operations forces inside the Pakistani territories.

According a local official source from the Ministry of Defence, who has also been briefed on the meetings, said, “American’s message was if that Pakistani help isn’t forthcoming, the United States will have to do it by itself.”
When reached by his comments, a spokesperson of American Embassy in Islamabad denied this saying, “Pakistan and the US have agreed to enhance cooperation against terrorism and militancy; and that the US has not warned Pakistan of using special forces inside Pakistan”.
It is pertinent to mention here that the US has also offered Pakistan a broader strategic relationship and expanded intelligence sharing and non-military economic aid in case Pakistan meets its recent demand.
The US warning of increasing drone attacks inside Pakistan and using Special Operations forces has come at a time when American Special Operations forces are busy in battling Taliban near the Pak-Afghan border.
In September 2008, these Special Forces had attacked militants in a Pakistani village near Pak-Afghan border, in the first publicly acknowledged case of United States forces conducting a ground raid on Pakistani soil.
But the operation caused a political uproar in Pakistan, with the country’s Core Commanders condemning the attack, and the United States backed off what had been a planned series of such strikes.
It is believed that the US officials have already been told by Pakistan that its forces were already busy in taking on Afghan Taliban leaders and the Haqqani network based in North Waziristan, so it was not fair to press it to do more.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/28-May-2010/US-threatens-to-hunt-down-Taliban-inside-Pakistan/1

 

Haqqani rejects reports of US pressure

Friday, May 28, 2010
WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States has rubbished reports that top US officials coerced his country last week into launching anti-militant operations, saying the discussions between US National Security Adviser and Pakistani leaders were part of their ongoing dialogue.

Ambassador Hussain Haqqani also made a strong defense of Pakistan’s continuing counterterrorism efforts and stressed that the sacrifices and ëcrucialí role of its security and intelligence organisations must be recognised.

“Did Gen Jones put any pressure on Pakistan? No, he did not,” Haqqani told members of Asia Society here on Wednesday evening. He was asked whether US National Security Adviser James Jones and CIA Director Leon Panetta-who travelled to Islamabad weeks after failed Times Square bombing attempt by an American citizen of Pakistani descent-had actually threatened Pakistan. The envoy questioned the veracity of media accounts claiming Washington had threatened Islamabad, terming them as conjecture.


http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=241746

 

 

 


 
 Reply:   US seek crack down, same paper two news items
Replied by(International_Professor) Replied on (27/May/2010)
Policy change requires practical actions not fascism

US seeks Pakistan crackdown on Taliban


Thursday, 27 May, 2010

WASHINGTON: Two top Obama administration officials have told Pakistan that it has only weeks to show real progress in a crackdown against the Pakistani Taliban, a senior US official said Wednesday, reports AP.

The US has put Pakistan “on a clock” to launch a new intelligence and counterterrorist offensive against the group, which the White House alleges was behind the Times Square bombing attempt, according to the official.

White House national security adviser James Jones and CIA Director Leon Panetta delivered that message to Islamabad last week, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

As first reported by the Los Angeles Times, the high-ranking US delegation presented the Pakistanis with evidence they believe proves that Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad was trained and funded by the Tehrik-e-Taliban, or TTP, as the Pakistani Taliban are known. Shahzad is accused of attempting to ignite what turned out to be a poorly constructed car bomb in Times Square.

The evidence also showed that two TTP members escorted Shahzad to a training base in the lawless tribal area of Waziristan, where he received some instruction in how to build explosives, the US official said.

Pakistani authorities have already detained two suspects thought to be those TTP escorts, the official said. The US now expects to see Pakistan carry out further independent counterterrorist operations and quietly increase other unspecified cooperation with the Americans, the official said.

The visiting delegation reminded Pakistani leaders that President Barack Obama had sent them a letter in November, asking for a tougher crackdown against al-Qaida and its affiliates like the TTP, the official said.

So far, many US officials have rated Pakistan's progress on that front as mixed because Pakistan has maintained a detente with some of the al-Qaeda affiliates that operate in its frontier provinces, like the Haqqani network.

The official said those in the delegation to Pakistan were hopeful that the Shahzad case may spell the difference because the US is asking Pakistan to crack down on a group that is a sworn enemy of Islamabad.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-us-seeks-pakistan-crackdown-on-taliban-02-sa

 


 
 Reply:   Obama dumps Bush doctrine ?
Replied by(International_Professor) Replied on (27/May/2010)
Also read what it is demanding from Pakistan

Obama strategy dumps Bush anti-terror doctrine


Friday, 28 May, 2010

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama unveiled a new national security strategy Thursday, replacing George W. Bush's “war on terror”doctrine with a sweeping blueprint for a world bristling with multiple threats.

Obama also put new constraints on the former president's concept of pre-emptive war and cited national security implications of economic meltdowns, global warming, cyberwarfare, nuclear proliferation and ethnic conflict.

“To succeed, we must face the world as it is,” the document states, turning the page on Bush-era dreams of remaking the global order with American might and recognizing the increasing global engagement of Russia and the emergence of rising powers like China and India.

The document also contains warnings for Iran and North Korea, focuses on homegrown extremists who turn to Islamic radicalism in America and says the most serious threats to Americans are posed by nuclear proliferation.

The new doctrine illustrates an evolution of Obama's pro-engagement policies after 16 months in power, a period that brought the idealism of his election campaign into conflict with the harsh realities of geopolitics.

It describes a world thick with evolving threats and seeks to reframe US foreign policy after two bloody wars and a crippling global financial crisis.

It projects a tough, hard-nosed assessment of American interests and the use of US power, and lays out a dizzying array of threats from cyberwarfare to health epidemics to ethnic wars to inequality.

Obama commits to using the sweeping range of foreign policy tools, including diplomacy, economic renewal, development aid, military might and education.

It calls for tough engagement “without illusion” with US foes like Iran and North Korea, but warns they face deepening isolation if they continue to spurn US advances and do not bow to pressure to throw open their nuclear programs.

The document also preserves the US right to launch unilateral military action, but does so in more restrictive terms than those used by the former Bush administration.

It also seeks to widen the scope of US foreign policy, which became dominated by a doctrinaire “war on terror” following the September 11 attacks in 2001, and led to the war in Iraq, after the invasion of Afghanistan.

“We will always seek to delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out,” said the document, the product of intense internal deliberations during the 16 months of the Obama administration.

“Yet this is not a global war against a tactic, terrorism or a religion, Islam.

“We are at war with a specific network, al-Qaeda, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners.”

In his final national security strategy in 2006, Bush targeted terrorism as a concept more specifically, declaring boldly “the war on terror is not over.”

Obama's document appears to water down the concept of preemptive war favored by the Bush administration, but preserves the option for a US president to deploy military might unilaterally.

It says Washington will “adhere to standards that govern the use of force.”

"We will also outline a clear mandate and specific objectives and thoroughly consider the consequences , intended and unintended, of our actions.”

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/16-obama-s-doctrine-to-make-clear-no-war-on-islam-aide-02-sa

 


 
Please send your suggestion/submission to webmaster@makePakistanBetter.com
Long Live Islam and Pakistan
Site is best viewed at 1280*800 resolution