Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Obair's Blogspot
My passion is to change the world within my parameters. Accepting, adjusting and changing people's views in certain areas of discussion is for what reason I am here for. I love to hear from people who want to express their opinion on the issues I bring up in this blog because I want to know what YOU, as an individual of this world community which is supposedly breaking national boundaries due to Globalisation, think if we are going in the right direction or not.
Just for a starting cause, I might be a bit biased towards the issues in the sub-continent, so, sorry for leaving the rest of the world out. I will come to your part of the world for sure and the people who visit this blog will definitely hear and express their opinions on every issue.
P.S: Since this is just the inaugural phase of this blog spot, I regret the mistakes and errors that I might have made on this site, please do contact me for any corrections I should make to this site. Thanks!
ISSUE 2:
Will the US Leave Iraqi Allies Behind Like It Did in Vietnam?
David Ignatius, The Washington Post
One day in the Gerald Ford presidency that hasn’t received much attention in the past week’s memorials is April 30, 1975. That was the day the last American helicopter pulled away from the US Embassy in Saigon, leaving behind many thousands of South Vietnamese who had worked with the United States.
Those wrenching final images of the Vietnam War are relevant now as we think about what lies ahead in Iraq. However long the United States stays in Iraq and whatever success it achieves there, we should agree we have a moral responsibility to the Iraqis who risked their lives and families to be America’s allies.
How America leaves Iraq will be as important as how it entered. That’s why I found the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report valuable — because they focused on an orderly process of transition from US military occupation to Iraqi sovereignty, with the assistance of Iraq’s neighbors. President Bush seems about to embark on a riskier course of a “surge” in American troops to achieve something that looks like military victory. But if that “double-down” bet fails, I fear we will eventually witness a repetition of April 30, 1975 — without the orderly process envisioned by Baker-Hamilton.
America’s ragged withdrawal from Vietnam was chronicled by Frank Snepp, a CIA analyst in Saigon at the time. In his 1977 book, “Decent Interval,” Snepp wrote that the CIA station in Saigon was able to evacuate only about 537 of its 1,900 “indigenous employees” in April 1975. The agency also abandoned 400 members of the CIA-trained Special Police Branch; 400 members of the Central Intelligence Organization of South Vietnam; hundreds of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong defectors; and nearly 30,000 Vietnamese who had been trained as operatives in the CIA’s Phoenix program. These people were, in practical terms, left to die.
In the pell-mell American withdrawal, wrote Snepp, “We committed the unpardonable mistake of failing to ensure the destruction of the personnel files and intelligence dossiers we had helped the government assemble.” He concluded: “It is not too much to say that in terms of squandered lives, blown secrets, and the betrayal of agents, friends and collaborators, our handling of the evacuation was an institutional disgrace.”
Thomas Polgar, the Saigon station chief, sent a final bleak cable to headquarters: “It has been a long and hard fight and we have lost. This experience, unique in the history of the United States, does not signal necessarily the demise of the United States as a world power. The severity of the defeat and the circumstances of it, however, would seem to call for a reassessment of the policies of niggardly half-measures which have characterized much of our participation here.”
Vietnam and America did indeed survive this trauma — to the point that three decades later, Vietnam is a prosperous and friendly nation visited by American presidents. A big reason why is that after the chaotic withdrawal, America worked to keep faith with people who had been its allies. The brutal policies of the North Vietnamese created waves of refugees who became known as “boat people.” Many thousands of them made their way to the United States, and their children and grandchildren are among our nation’s great success stories.
One of the great tragedies of the Iraq war has been America’s inability to protect its friends in Iraq or to offer them a haven when they were forced to flee the country. The New York Times reported this week that 1.8 million Iraqis are living outside the country, with tens of thousands more fleeing each month. But until recently, the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 Iraqis in the United States in 2007. The Times quoted Kirk W. Johnson, a former US aid worker in Fallujah: “We’re not even meeting our basic obligation to the Iraqis who’ve been imperiled because they worked for the US government.”
The Vietnamese who came to America after April 1975 provided a backbone for investment and political change in their home country. Their superpower ally failed on the battlefield, but the Vietnamese who believed in free markets and modern values ended up as the winners.
I want to believe that will happen eventually in Iraq, as well. But one of the worst effects of the war is that it is destroying the educated middle class of Iraq — driving doctors, teachers and business people into desperate exile. When Iraq comes back together some day, will these educated Iraqis be America’s friends, or will they despise us?
Whatever we do in Iraq in coming months, it should include a bipartisan commitment to keep faith with the people who risked everything for a new Iraq — by making room for them in America, if necessary. We need a surge of compassion more than a surge of US troops.
ISSUE 1:
India Bans Arab TV Channels Under Pressure From Israel
Just for a starting cause, I might be a bit biased towards the issues in the sub-continent, so, sorry for leaving the rest of the world out. I will come to your part of the world for sure and the people who visit this blog will definitely hear and express their opinions on every issue.
P.S: Since this is just the inaugural phase of this blog spot, I regret the mistakes and errors that I might have made on this site, please do contact me for any corrections I should make to this site. Thanks!
ISSUE 2:
Will the US Leave Iraqi Allies Behind Like It Did in Vietnam?
David Ignatius, The Washington Post
One day in the Gerald Ford presidency that hasn’t received much attention in the past week’s memorials is April 30, 1975. That was the day the last American helicopter pulled away from the US Embassy in Saigon, leaving behind many thousands of South Vietnamese who had worked with the United States.
Those wrenching final images of the Vietnam War are relevant now as we think about what lies ahead in Iraq. However long the United States stays in Iraq and whatever success it achieves there, we should agree we have a moral responsibility to the Iraqis who risked their lives and families to be America’s allies.
How America leaves Iraq will be as important as how it entered. That’s why I found the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report valuable — because they focused on an orderly process of transition from US military occupation to Iraqi sovereignty, with the assistance of Iraq’s neighbors. President Bush seems about to embark on a riskier course of a “surge” in American troops to achieve something that looks like military victory. But if that “double-down” bet fails, I fear we will eventually witness a repetition of April 30, 1975 — without the orderly process envisioned by Baker-Hamilton.
America’s ragged withdrawal from Vietnam was chronicled by Frank Snepp, a CIA analyst in Saigon at the time. In his 1977 book, “Decent Interval,” Snepp wrote that the CIA station in Saigon was able to evacuate only about 537 of its 1,900 “indigenous employees” in April 1975. The agency also abandoned 400 members of the CIA-trained Special Police Branch; 400 members of the Central Intelligence Organization of South Vietnam; hundreds of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong defectors; and nearly 30,000 Vietnamese who had been trained as operatives in the CIA’s Phoenix program. These people were, in practical terms, left to die.
In the pell-mell American withdrawal, wrote Snepp, “We committed the unpardonable mistake of failing to ensure the destruction of the personnel files and intelligence dossiers we had helped the government assemble.” He concluded: “It is not too much to say that in terms of squandered lives, blown secrets, and the betrayal of agents, friends and collaborators, our handling of the evacuation was an institutional disgrace.”
Thomas Polgar, the Saigon station chief, sent a final bleak cable to headquarters: “It has been a long and hard fight and we have lost. This experience, unique in the history of the United States, does not signal necessarily the demise of the United States as a world power. The severity of the defeat and the circumstances of it, however, would seem to call for a reassessment of the policies of niggardly half-measures which have characterized much of our participation here.”
Vietnam and America did indeed survive this trauma — to the point that three decades later, Vietnam is a prosperous and friendly nation visited by American presidents. A big reason why is that after the chaotic withdrawal, America worked to keep faith with people who had been its allies. The brutal policies of the North Vietnamese created waves of refugees who became known as “boat people.” Many thousands of them made their way to the United States, and their children and grandchildren are among our nation’s great success stories.
One of the great tragedies of the Iraq war has been America’s inability to protect its friends in Iraq or to offer them a haven when they were forced to flee the country. The New York Times reported this week that 1.8 million Iraqis are living outside the country, with tens of thousands more fleeing each month. But until recently, the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 Iraqis in the United States in 2007. The Times quoted Kirk W. Johnson, a former US aid worker in Fallujah: “We’re not even meeting our basic obligation to the Iraqis who’ve been imperiled because they worked for the US government.”
The Vietnamese who came to America after April 1975 provided a backbone for investment and political change in their home country. Their superpower ally failed on the battlefield, but the Vietnamese who believed in free markets and modern values ended up as the winners.
I want to believe that will happen eventually in Iraq, as well. But one of the worst effects of the war is that it is destroying the educated middle class of Iraq — driving doctors, teachers and business people into desperate exile. When Iraq comes back together some day, will these educated Iraqis be America’s friends, or will they despise us?
Whatever we do in Iraq in coming months, it should include a bipartisan commitment to keep faith with the people who risked everything for a new Iraq — by making room for them in America, if necessary. We need a surge of compassion more than a surge of US troops.
ISSUE 1:
India Bans Arab TV Channels Under Pressure From Israel
Shahid Raza Burney, Arab News
BOMBAY, 6 August 2006 — In a country widely referred to as the world’s largest democracy, the Indian government has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels.
The Indian government’s ban on Arab television stations is in complete contrast to the friendship that Arab countries imagine exists with their neighbor across the Arabian Sea. It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories.
Nabila Al-Bassam, a Saudi businesswoman on a trip to Bombay, told Arab News how she became exasperated at not being able to watch Arab channels at Bombay’s leading five-star Oberoi Hotel. When she took up the issue with the hotel manager, she was told that Arab television channels had been banned across India.
A perplexed Al-Bassam then sent an SMS to Arab News Editor in Chief Khaled Almaeena to verify whether this was indeed the case. “Oberoi Hotel tells me that the government of India has banned all Arab TV channels. Why? I hate watching CNN and BBC,” she wrote to Almaeena.
Talking to Arab News, Oberoi Hotel Manager Mohit Nirula did allude to the fact that a ban was in place. “The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has laid down certain rules. It is our duty to abide by and follow the rules of the country,” he told this correspondent.
Minister of Information and Broadcasting Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi was busy in Parliament and was unavailable for comment on the issue. However, a ministry official explained why the Indian government decided to enforce the ban. The official highlighted that India enjoys close and cordial relations with Israel and the US more than any of the Arab governments.
According to another source within the government, the ban is a clear sign to all governments in the Middle East that the Israeli, American and British governments carry far more influence in India than any of the Arab governments.
Several senior Indian journalists explained that the ban was an indication that India had succumbed to Israeli pressure rather than American.
“The whole exercise is to browbeat Arabs and show them as terrorists. The government is subscribing to the absurd argument that channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya promote hatred and encourage terrorism,” they said.
Political analysts in India described the move as a game of double standard that India is playing. On the one hand India establishes friendship with the Arab world while simultaneously it joins with Israel and the US in defaming them. It seems that the pro-Israeli lobby wishes to drive a wedge between India and its time-tested Arab allies. The Indian government’s present stance is in stark contrast to the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s staunch support of the Palestinian cause.
The banning of Arabic channels is a federal government decision, done under what senior Indian journalists claim to be intense pressure from the Israeli, American and British governments.
The Indian government has been vocal in its condemnation of Israeli barbarity and has offered millions of rupees in aid to refugees in Lebanon. Arabs sympathetic to India have therefore met the news with surprise.
Many Arabs draw inspiration from India’s heroic struggle against British imperialism and the Indian independence struggle is seen by Palestinians as a brilliant example of throwing out the yoke of imperialism. It is sad that 50 years after independence the world’s largest democracy unfairly suppresses alternative opinion and allows itself to be dictated to by foreign powers.
The analysts believe the Indian government may have used a clause within the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, that certain channels or programs that can potentially cause damage to India’s friendly relations with foreign countries can be banned, a clear violation of democratic ideals such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
The response to the ban by hotel administrations across Bombay has been dismal. Chad Alberico, JW Marriott’s customer care official in Washington, said: “We have reviewed your recent inquiries regarding the television offerings at our JW Marriott Bombay. We have phoned our colleagues at the hotel to discuss the matter at hand, but as it is the weekend, we will need additional time to form a complete response.”
“I’m on my way home, it’s the weekend and I will respond on Monday,” said Shehnaz Ankelsaria from the Taj President Hotel. Annan Udeshi from The Hilton was unavailable and asked for a message to be left on her recorder. Khushnooma Kapadia of Marriott Hotel said she would get back later. Rafat Kazi from the Grand Central Sheraton said that she would answer after consulting her general manager. Puja Guleria of Sheraton Maratta said she needed time to deal with the questions. Firuza Mistry of Grand Hyatt said that she was not aware of the facts and would check and respond, and Priya Mathias of Hyatt Regency said that she would also need to check with her senior officials to comment.
BOMBAY, 6 August 2006 — In a country widely referred to as the world’s largest democracy, the Indian government has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels.
The Indian government’s ban on Arab television stations is in complete contrast to the friendship that Arab countries imagine exists with their neighbor across the Arabian Sea. It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories.
Nabila Al-Bassam, a Saudi businesswoman on a trip to Bombay, told Arab News how she became exasperated at not being able to watch Arab channels at Bombay’s leading five-star Oberoi Hotel. When she took up the issue with the hotel manager, she was told that Arab television channels had been banned across India.
A perplexed Al-Bassam then sent an SMS to Arab News Editor in Chief Khaled Almaeena to verify whether this was indeed the case. “Oberoi Hotel tells me that the government of India has banned all Arab TV channels. Why? I hate watching CNN and BBC,” she wrote to Almaeena.
Talking to Arab News, Oberoi Hotel Manager Mohit Nirula did allude to the fact that a ban was in place. “The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has laid down certain rules. It is our duty to abide by and follow the rules of the country,” he told this correspondent.
Minister of Information and Broadcasting Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi was busy in Parliament and was unavailable for comment on the issue. However, a ministry official explained why the Indian government decided to enforce the ban. The official highlighted that India enjoys close and cordial relations with Israel and the US more than any of the Arab governments.
According to another source within the government, the ban is a clear sign to all governments in the Middle East that the Israeli, American and British governments carry far more influence in India than any of the Arab governments.
Several senior Indian journalists explained that the ban was an indication that India had succumbed to Israeli pressure rather than American.
“The whole exercise is to browbeat Arabs and show them as terrorists. The government is subscribing to the absurd argument that channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya promote hatred and encourage terrorism,” they said.
Political analysts in India described the move as a game of double standard that India is playing. On the one hand India establishes friendship with the Arab world while simultaneously it joins with Israel and the US in defaming them. It seems that the pro-Israeli lobby wishes to drive a wedge between India and its time-tested Arab allies. The Indian government’s present stance is in stark contrast to the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s staunch support of the Palestinian cause.
The banning of Arabic channels is a federal government decision, done under what senior Indian journalists claim to be intense pressure from the Israeli, American and British governments.
The Indian government has been vocal in its condemnation of Israeli barbarity and has offered millions of rupees in aid to refugees in Lebanon. Arabs sympathetic to India have therefore met the news with surprise.
Many Arabs draw inspiration from India’s heroic struggle against British imperialism and the Indian independence struggle is seen by Palestinians as a brilliant example of throwing out the yoke of imperialism. It is sad that 50 years after independence the world’s largest democracy unfairly suppresses alternative opinion and allows itself to be dictated to by foreign powers.
The analysts believe the Indian government may have used a clause within the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, that certain channels or programs that can potentially cause damage to India’s friendly relations with foreign countries can be banned, a clear violation of democratic ideals such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
The response to the ban by hotel administrations across Bombay has been dismal. Chad Alberico, JW Marriott’s customer care official in Washington, said: “We have reviewed your recent inquiries regarding the television offerings at our JW Marriott Bombay. We have phoned our colleagues at the hotel to discuss the matter at hand, but as it is the weekend, we will need additional time to form a complete response.”
“I’m on my way home, it’s the weekend and I will respond on Monday,” said Shehnaz Ankelsaria from the Taj President Hotel. Annan Udeshi from The Hilton was unavailable and asked for a message to be left on her recorder. Khushnooma Kapadia of Marriott Hotel said she would get back later. Rafat Kazi from the Grand Central Sheraton said that she would answer after consulting her general manager. Puja Guleria of Sheraton Maratta said she needed time to deal with the questions. Firuza Mistry of Grand Hyatt said that she was not aware of the facts and would check and respond, and Priya Mathias of Hyatt Regency said that she would also need to check with her senior officials to comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)