Fair Use Note

WARNING for European visitors: European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent. As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies. You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.

Thomas Paine

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

27 Feb - Morning Articles

Nuclear and Strategic Implications of the Mumbai Attacks: One Year Later
http://www.wmdinsights.com/I31/I31_SA2_NuclearandStrategic.htm
Lessons in Restraint and Evolutions in Strategy
The 2001-2002 Kashmir confrontation left a lasting impression on governments in both New Delhi and Islamabad and made the case for avoiding direct military confrontation in favor of a balanced approach in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, as occurred following the Mumbai attacks. In 2001, after a terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, India mobilized 500,000 troops along the Line of Control in Kashmir in Operation Parakram. Pakistan responded with 120,000 of its own troops in what became the largest military build up in the region since the 1971 war. [25] In the months that followed, the international community made numerous attempts to defuse the situation, but the standoff continued. The turning point came in June 2002, when Indian PM Jaswant Singh reiterated India’s policy of no first use (NFU) of nuclear weapons, and then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf responded by saying Pakistan would retain the option to use nuclear weapons first in a confrontation with India. Within weeks India began to withdraw its troops from the region.

India and Pakistan, which appeared to be on the brink of war in 2001-2002, stood down in the context of a new security paradigm resulting from the presence of nuclear arms and an increased threshold for armed conflict. India first tested a nuclear device with a “peaceful nuclear explosion” in 1974, but it was not until its 1998 tests that India made its nuclear weapons capability public. In March 1998, the nationalist BJP was elected and the new PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee immediately scheduled a test date. [26] Within weeks of the Indian tests, Pakistan tested its own nuclear weapons. After the tests, the regional dynamic changed from one of constant tension to increased prudence in the face of confrontation. For example, India’s response to Pakistan’s troop mobilization in 2001 may have been less conciliatory had Pakistan not had nuclear weapons. As noted by experts in both countries, nuclear weapons seemed to have a stabilizing effect on the region by demanding caution from all sides. [27] Security dynamics in South Asia continue to be shaped by the presence of nuclear weapons. Both Indian and Pakistani security experts agree that the Mumbai attacks were unlikely to lead to a military confrontation because of the danger of escalation to nuclear war.

MissOceanPink's

SEWING OCEAN

http://my.opera.com/missoceanpink/links

( Added to Miscellaneous How-To's  )

How the Mountain of Climate Change Evidence Is Being Used to Undermine the Cause
http://www.alternet.org/story/145838/how_the_mountain_of_climate_change_evidence_is_being_used_to_undermine_the_cause?page=5

Co2, Mass Extinction Of Species And Climate Change
http://91.192.36.12/news/1/12788-co2-mass-extinction-of-species-and-climate-change-.html
( Change of Focus : Bait and Switch ? )
Chomsky, Zinn, and Obama
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/5753-chomsky-zinn-and-obama-.html

This strategy of choosing an alleged “lesser evil” because he/she might be influenced by some mythical “popular movement” would be naïve if put forth by a high school student. Professors Chomsky and Zinn know better. If it’s incremental change they want, why not encourage their many readers to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? The classic (read: absurd) reply to that question is: “Because Nader or McKinney can’t win.”

Of course they can’t win if everyone who claims to agree with them inexplicably votes for Obama instead. Paging Alice: You’re wanted down the goddamned rabbit hole.

Campaigning For State-Owned Banks
Written by Ellen Hodgson Brown   

The new McCarthyism in Israel - Human rights groups face crackdown
Written by Jonathan Cook   

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com

Stop the War on Lebanon
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204606632

Liberty Quotes Reflect the American Experience
http://political-philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/liberty_quotes_reflect_the_american_experience

Harvard Professor's Shocking Proposal: Starve the Palestinians in Gaza into Having Fewer Babies
http://www.alternet.org/world/145831/harvard_professor%27s_shocking_proposal%3A_starve_the_palestinians_in_gaza_into_having_fewer_babies_
( Associated idea to genocidal concepts cited for Global Warming Hoax and Eugenics : Carrying capacity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

American Genocides: Is Haiti Next?
http://91.192.36.12/news/1/12787-american-genocides-is-haiti-next.html  


What is retweet? (RT)
http://help.twitter.com/forums/10711/entries/77606

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments:

Post a Comment