JunRN
06-05 10:25 PM
I noticed that the $8k and $10k for California (which began in March 09) stimulus is taken by builders for their benefit. How did they do it?
When I bought a house in March 09, the builder offered me great discounts (20k off the purchase price, interest buy down to 4.5%) and freebies (fridge, blinds, washer/dyer) so I took it. I bought the house for less than $90 per sq. ft.
After the $8k Fed. and $10k California stimulus have passed, builders use that as their sales pitch to attract buyers and removed their previously offered discounts (some still offers discount though but offset the stimulus benefits).
So, I believe that the builders/sellers are the real winner in the stimulus, not the buyers.
When I bought a house in March 09, the builder offered me great discounts (20k off the purchase price, interest buy down to 4.5%) and freebies (fridge, blinds, washer/dyer) so I took it. I bought the house for less than $90 per sq. ft.
After the $8k Fed. and $10k California stimulus have passed, builders use that as their sales pitch to attract buyers and removed their previously offered discounts (some still offers discount though but offset the stimulus benefits).
So, I believe that the builders/sellers are the real winner in the stimulus, not the buyers.
wallpaper super-stack heart attack
Macaca
04-03 08:22 AM
Soliciting for Good Citizens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201749_2.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.
Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.
But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.
The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):
"Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."
"Coffee breaks: We'll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area."
"Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."
"Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."
None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.
Oh.
Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.
Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.
But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.
The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):
"Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."
"Coffee breaks: We'll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area."
"Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."
"Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."
None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.
Oh.
gsc999
05-13 06:23 PM
I heard many stories that consultants are selling labor certifications and this lead to a big back log.... people who were last in the line are in front of the line now....consultants created a business from these labor certifications and are making lots of money...its fair for the government or uscis to apply this bill and control this black business....
:p Attack of the Trolls - Final Battle
:p Attack of the Trolls - Final Battle
2011 hot Heart+attack+grill+menu+
leoindiano
03-24 08:57 AM
Thanks for your insight. Its about time most of us here understand not to take immigration rules lightly, and I've been preaching this for the longest time already!
People here had their own justification about "consulting". Well, this is what they get for exploiting loopholes.
Dear Sledge_hammer,
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
People here had their own justification about "consulting". Well, this is what they get for exploiting loopholes.
Dear Sledge_hammer,
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
more...
kaisersose
04-15 02:12 PM
I am on H1B and I485 is pending. I just bought a mid-price house and I will recommend to buy only if your I140 is approved. I waited for many years but finally bought one. Buying the house was a big decision but I am glad that I took it. I have a 3 year old daughter and she being able to run in our own backyard is worh of some financial risk. The house prices are lower (still I think a little higher than it should be) and the interest rate is good too. So, go for it and good luck.
Per iwantmygreen you (just like me) are here to hurt his/her emotions. Apparently we get a kick out of that.
Per iwantmygreen you (just like me) are here to hurt his/her emotions. Apparently we get a kick out of that.
desi3933
08-05 03:26 PM
It is not the Law. It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
more...
LostInGCProcess
08-05 02:59 PM
Seems to me he started the flood and left....I was going thru this thread, and after couple of pages Rolling_flood seems to have vanished. I think he got what he wanted...a pointless debate. It was funny though to read... :D
2010 super-stack heart attack
sdrblr
03-23 11:57 AM
I just wanted to point out that please be careful of what personal information you give as this is a "Incoming Call" and it is hard to verify the authenticity of it.
more...
Macaca
02-20 10:20 AM
Some paras from A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900972.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Please send e-mail tokstreet@washpost.com
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
hair #39;Super-Stack Heart Attack
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
more...
abcdgc
12-27 02:15 AM
I am ambivalent about eliminating Pakistan's nuclear program. On the one hand, you are right that nukes in the hands of militants is a scary scenario. (Ironically, you increase the probability of the nukes falling into wrong hands by having a destabilizing war between Pakistan and India.)
But then equally scary is a defenseless Pakistan against India. Atleast, thats our perception.
I don't know who all controls the nukes. The army is certainly one part of it.
Don't worry, those nukes don't work. Pakistan first tried to test its devices in 1998. And after much "troubleshooting", the home grown devices did not explode in 1998. Chinese had to step in for face saving to explode 5 devices just for sake of exploding "nukes". The reality is, those arrow shaped hollow metal shells are risky because that metal is heavy. Other than the weight of the metal shell, there is no risk from Pakistani "nukes" :p
But then equally scary is a defenseless Pakistan against India. Atleast, thats our perception.
I don't know who all controls the nukes. The army is certainly one part of it.
Don't worry, those nukes don't work. Pakistan first tried to test its devices in 1998. And after much "troubleshooting", the home grown devices did not explode in 1998. Chinese had to step in for face saving to explode 5 devices just for sake of exploding "nukes". The reality is, those arrow shaped hollow metal shells are risky because that metal is heavy. Other than the weight of the metal shell, there is no risk from Pakistani "nukes" :p
hot super stack heart attack
Macaca
07-08 10:48 AM
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
He received a notice of intent to denial last month. Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001. His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days).
I am not aware of any GC stage that requires all pay stubs. How did they detect missing pay stubs for 6+ months?
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
He received a notice of intent to denial last month. Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001. His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days).
I am not aware of any GC stage that requires all pay stubs. How did they detect missing pay stubs for 6+ months?
more...
house vortex heart attack burger.
Refugee_New
01-06 04:37 PM
Slow down chief, not so fast.
There are two ways to give coverage to an issue. One could be decided based on how many people are affected, second could be based on how may people care for that issue.
Exactly, its about how many people care about the issue. This doesn't bother/don't care attitude is what making people angry. If you care death of 4 people and don't even bother to care the death of innocent school kids, then there is some problem with people who claim to be peaceful and peace loving nation. Its called double standard and hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=sanju;308870]
There needs to be correction in your post. When Pakistanis terrorist attacked mumbai, world community blamed Pakistan and not the entire muslim community.
The problem is, the way muslim community responds to such world events, due to the sense of the guilt of their twisted belief system, they think that the world community is blaming every muslim, but that is actually not how the world community responded. Also, because of the urge to defend terror attacks by a terrorist, muslim community tends to justify terrorism and terrosit attacks. We saw many "educated" (HIGHLY SKILLED) members, who were apparently muslims, on this forum justifying terrorist attacks conducted by Pakistani terrorist who happen to be "muslims". Because, the overriding factor for a lot people following islamic faith is the religion of the person performing the bad deeds. And if that person happen to be a muslim, most of you guys tend to justify bad deeds including terrorist acts. This behavior results in world community responding to you in plain and simple terms that terrorist sympathizer is encouraging more terrorism and hence you perceive that expression as if the others are branding your entire community as terrorist, but again, this is not true either. Its the direct result of your sense of guilt and your urge to be terrorist sympathizer.
Exactly, its about how many people care about the issue. If terrorists kill innocent civilians, first thing they'll say is "Islamic Terrorism". Don't tell me media around the world didn't use this term. Anything and everything blamed on religion and people following the religion. But When you kill muslims in hundreds, you won't say even a single word.
Don't tell me members of this forum didn't blame muslims and their faith.
Its your twisted belief that all muslims support terrorism or they defend terrorists. Its your twisted belief fed by biased media and biased religious and political leaders. I won't blame you.
[QUOTE]
There are two ways to give coverage to an issue. One could be decided based on how many people are affected, second could be based on how may people care for that issue.
Exactly, its about how many people care about the issue. This doesn't bother/don't care attitude is what making people angry. If you care death of 4 people and don't even bother to care the death of innocent school kids, then there is some problem with people who claim to be peaceful and peace loving nation. Its called double standard and hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=sanju;308870]
There needs to be correction in your post. When Pakistanis terrorist attacked mumbai, world community blamed Pakistan and not the entire muslim community.
The problem is, the way muslim community responds to such world events, due to the sense of the guilt of their twisted belief system, they think that the world community is blaming every muslim, but that is actually not how the world community responded. Also, because of the urge to defend terror attacks by a terrorist, muslim community tends to justify terrorism and terrosit attacks. We saw many "educated" (HIGHLY SKILLED) members, who were apparently muslims, on this forum justifying terrorist attacks conducted by Pakistani terrorist who happen to be "muslims". Because, the overriding factor for a lot people following islamic faith is the religion of the person performing the bad deeds. And if that person happen to be a muslim, most of you guys tend to justify bad deeds including terrorist acts. This behavior results in world community responding to you in plain and simple terms that terrorist sympathizer is encouraging more terrorism and hence you perceive that expression as if the others are branding your entire community as terrorist, but again, this is not true either. Its the direct result of your sense of guilt and your urge to be terrorist sympathizer.
Exactly, its about how many people care about the issue. If terrorists kill innocent civilians, first thing they'll say is "Islamic Terrorism". Don't tell me media around the world didn't use this term. Anything and everything blamed on religion and people following the religion. But When you kill muslims in hundreds, you won't say even a single word.
Don't tell me members of this forum didn't blame muslims and their faith.
Its your twisted belief that all muslims support terrorism or they defend terrorists. Its your twisted belief fed by biased media and biased religious and political leaders. I won't blame you.
[QUOTE]
tattoo dresses super stack heart attack burger vortex.
immique
07-14 11:07 PM
I think EB3 India may be the unintended beneficiary of the appropriate interpretation of the spill over of visa into retrogressed EB2 countries. I suspect that once EB2 India and China are current, the remaining visas will spill over into EB3. Thay do NOT spill over into EB3 ROW only but will spill over into EB3 as a whole. the reason for this is as both EB3 ROW and EB3 India are retrogressed, both these categories will advance equally as EB2 I and EB2 China are doing currently. I strongly think this will be the likely outcome next year and so EB3 India should see the PD movement approximately the same as EB3 ROW- but this will happen only when EB2 is current and the spill over reaches EB3 (this will likely happen in the final quarter of 2009)
but you are not correct about this. please look it up. The vertical spillover was going to EB3 ROW, had that not been so, EB2 I would not have become U, even though (you are right about that) USCIS was actually allocating a little too fast.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
but you are not correct about this. please look it up. The vertical spillover was going to EB3 ROW, had that not been so, EB2 I would not have become U, even though (you are right about that) USCIS was actually allocating a little too fast.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
more...
pictures super-stack heart attack
unitednations
08-02 11:57 AM
I am on H1 since 1999 with same employer except for a long interval of 16 months. I filed my labor in April 2001 (assuming 245(i) will cover me). I was not on payroll during Aug 03 to Dec 04. So my W2 for 2003 is 33% less than LCA and no W2 for 2004. I last entered US in Sept. 03
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
dresses super-stack heart attack
GCapplicant
09-26 10:02 AM
For me Obama and Mccain are equally good candidates. I would prefer Hillary Clinton over both of them.
McCain is a great guy, but he is with the wrong party. A party that aligns itself with anti-immigrants.
Now that we don't have much hopes for HR-5882, we should start targeting the CIR right now. Maybe we can talk to the Hispanic and other groups which will have an influence over CIR and have our provisions taken care of.
It will definitely be easier to tie-up with Hispanic caucus and other groups than anti-immigrants.
I agree with you - mediating with Caucus is the only option.Legal is nothing infront of them.They are the real majority when compared to our %.
Even if they bring new restriction over EB category - we have already applied and are in our final stage only.It's only the visa numbers.
The new rules might be for the new applicants ,maximum they might bring in Stem.There is nothing more they can do for us.More restrictions on us is quite impossible.
Oct 2009 should be in favor to us all.I have to only pray God.We have to just move on with our life.
McCain is a great guy, but he is with the wrong party. A party that aligns itself with anti-immigrants.
Now that we don't have much hopes for HR-5882, we should start targeting the CIR right now. Maybe we can talk to the Hispanic and other groups which will have an influence over CIR and have our provisions taken care of.
It will definitely be easier to tie-up with Hispanic caucus and other groups than anti-immigrants.
I agree with you - mediating with Caucus is the only option.Legal is nothing infront of them.They are the real majority when compared to our %.
Even if they bring new restriction over EB category - we have already applied and are in our final stage only.It's only the visa numbers.
The new rules might be for the new applicants ,maximum they might bring in Stem.There is nothing more they can do for us.More restrictions on us is quite impossible.
Oct 2009 should be in favor to us all.I have to only pray God.We have to just move on with our life.
more...
makeup house 2011 super stack heart
xyzgc
12-28 01:09 AM
One thing everyone needs to realize is that 21st century wars are not cheap anymore.
India just decided to implement the 12th pay commission's recommendations to its defense forces. A surgical strike is politically a risky venture. A strike may cause immediate gains and soothe tempers of the indian public but the battle will be fought through the media reports. Also, neither does the country have a national identity system nor has India been so serious about reaching out in a pro-active way. A weak border and the continuing saga of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, not to mention caste based politics, will augment future terrorist plans.
Pakistan has found a money maker in terrorism. US Aid to pakistan to fight terrorists will reach $8B after 9/11 ( http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pakistan_aid_numbers.html ) and more will be promised when the Iraq returns to stability and the focus turns to Pakistan's neighbor Afghanistan as the Taliban are gaining control again. This has been acknowledged by the new president-elect. Zardari's snub to curtail recession by the Chinese and the Saudis only solidifies Pakistan's need to find other sources/means of making money. Providing a conduit for drug trafficking for the Afghani market is already a major revenue source. Corruption is rampant.
I believe that the rhetoric in the media about war mongering and troop pullouts from the afghan border are for think tanks in Congress and the Pentagon to act and work to defuse the so called drama of war and renew their promises of providing aid in the form of $ and arms.
India has and will continue to be a peaceful and a reactive neighbor. It will continue significant investments in capital and policy to strengthen its internal security foundation and work towards economic prosperity by defending its borders rather than be a pro-active regional cop.
What India has gained, out of this sad and unfortunate event and its subsequent actions, is its status as a responsible upcoming super power in the region with diplomacy as the arrow and its nuclear capability as its bow!
Do you realize the extent of loss after Mumbai attacks?
The initial rough-and-ready calculations estimate that the business loss on those two days is close to $10 billion and the foreign exchange hit is approximately $20 billion.
A bomb scare in any software park in India (just a scare - no loss of life and property) will generate enough fear factor to shut it down for several weeks! How much loss do you think it entails?
And what about the loss of civilian lives? The lives of soldiers dying in shelling across India-Pak borders? The loss of morale of Mumbaities!! The feeling of insecurity when you hop on to the daily commuter train? Who will account for all of that?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Mumbai_attacks_may_have_cost_Rs_50k_crore/articleshow/3777430.cms
Of course, wars are costly! It doesn't mean you should not go on war, it doesn't mean you should zero out your defence budgets, or does it?
Do you drive your car without an insurance?
India just decided to implement the 12th pay commission's recommendations to its defense forces. A surgical strike is politically a risky venture. A strike may cause immediate gains and soothe tempers of the indian public but the battle will be fought through the media reports. Also, neither does the country have a national identity system nor has India been so serious about reaching out in a pro-active way. A weak border and the continuing saga of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, not to mention caste based politics, will augment future terrorist plans.
Pakistan has found a money maker in terrorism. US Aid to pakistan to fight terrorists will reach $8B after 9/11 ( http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pakistan_aid_numbers.html ) and more will be promised when the Iraq returns to stability and the focus turns to Pakistan's neighbor Afghanistan as the Taliban are gaining control again. This has been acknowledged by the new president-elect. Zardari's snub to curtail recession by the Chinese and the Saudis only solidifies Pakistan's need to find other sources/means of making money. Providing a conduit for drug trafficking for the Afghani market is already a major revenue source. Corruption is rampant.
I believe that the rhetoric in the media about war mongering and troop pullouts from the afghan border are for think tanks in Congress and the Pentagon to act and work to defuse the so called drama of war and renew their promises of providing aid in the form of $ and arms.
India has and will continue to be a peaceful and a reactive neighbor. It will continue significant investments in capital and policy to strengthen its internal security foundation and work towards economic prosperity by defending its borders rather than be a pro-active regional cop.
What India has gained, out of this sad and unfortunate event and its subsequent actions, is its status as a responsible upcoming super power in the region with diplomacy as the arrow and its nuclear capability as its bow!
Do you realize the extent of loss after Mumbai attacks?
The initial rough-and-ready calculations estimate that the business loss on those two days is close to $10 billion and the foreign exchange hit is approximately $20 billion.
A bomb scare in any software park in India (just a scare - no loss of life and property) will generate enough fear factor to shut it down for several weeks! How much loss do you think it entails?
And what about the loss of civilian lives? The lives of soldiers dying in shelling across India-Pak borders? The loss of morale of Mumbaities!! The feeling of insecurity when you hop on to the daily commuter train? Who will account for all of that?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Mumbai_attacks_may_have_cost_Rs_50k_crore/articleshow/3777430.cms
Of course, wars are costly! It doesn't mean you should not go on war, it doesn't mean you should zero out your defence budgets, or does it?
Do you drive your car without an insurance?
girlfriend girlfriend super stack heart
Gravitation
03-25 05:29 PM
If you make money using Biggerpockets... send me $100.:D
If I make money from a due to a piece of information or knowledge directly obtained from biggerpockets, I'll buy you a beer! :D
If I make money from a due to a piece of information or knowledge directly obtained from biggerpockets, I'll buy you a beer! :D
hairstyles 2010 super stack heart attack
engineer
01-03 12:31 AM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
Marphad
03-26 05:31 PM
Does this mean that H1B is also location specific?
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
another one
09-29 07:20 PM
To me collateral damage to GC is more acceptable than the same to human life.
On economic front, the only person on either side who truly supports free market policies is Ron Paul. He is the one of the few Republicans who actually thinks about balancing the budget. Tax cuts are ok, only if you back them up with reduced spending, without increasing the national levergage. National debt is now at 100% of GDP (in the company of zimbabwe and jamiaca) , 20-30% of future income tax will go towards paying of the interest on Govt tax. It will definitely crowd out future private investments. Look at the history of national debt, and correlate them to the administrations.
"Supply side" tax reductions of Reagan admin were good but even he increased the debt during his tenure. Leveraging is good for private cos (to certain limit, as we can say from recent developments), but not for Govts, as they do not really do much economically productive activity. Keynesian economists have all been hiding in their basement in the last two weeks.
It is just my belief that Repubs dumb down everything.. from education to how to sell a war or economic plan to people.
So you are ok with "colateral damage" to your GC ? I have never seen a school force creationism on a child, as for reading its the same everywhere (i remember in india my catholic shool was at pains to teach us that Ramayan was a legend...i didnt change my religion because of that). How many wars were fought during regans adminstration? Do you remember the tax rate during the Carter years? people were shelling out 17% on home loans while banks were paying 13% interest on their CD's. Media driven pontification is ok as long as you can substantiate them with valid reasoning. (Clinton years were good for us but some say that it laid the foundation for the dot com crisis, which lead to easy credit and so on)
On economic front, the only person on either side who truly supports free market policies is Ron Paul. He is the one of the few Republicans who actually thinks about balancing the budget. Tax cuts are ok, only if you back them up with reduced spending, without increasing the national levergage. National debt is now at 100% of GDP (in the company of zimbabwe and jamiaca) , 20-30% of future income tax will go towards paying of the interest on Govt tax. It will definitely crowd out future private investments. Look at the history of national debt, and correlate them to the administrations.
"Supply side" tax reductions of Reagan admin were good but even he increased the debt during his tenure. Leveraging is good for private cos (to certain limit, as we can say from recent developments), but not for Govts, as they do not really do much economically productive activity. Keynesian economists have all been hiding in their basement in the last two weeks.
It is just my belief that Repubs dumb down everything.. from education to how to sell a war or economic plan to people.
So you are ok with "colateral damage" to your GC ? I have never seen a school force creationism on a child, as for reading its the same everywhere (i remember in india my catholic shool was at pains to teach us that Ramayan was a legend...i didnt change my religion because of that). How many wars were fought during regans adminstration? Do you remember the tax rate during the Carter years? people were shelling out 17% on home loans while banks were paying 13% interest on their CD's. Media driven pontification is ok as long as you can substantiate them with valid reasoning. (Clinton years were good for us but some say that it laid the foundation for the dot com crisis, which lead to easy credit and so on)
No comments:
Post a Comment