PDA

View Full Version : Neutrality is the Answer - They Didn't Attack Switzerland


Truth_Bringer
21-08-2006, 04:50 PM
They Didn't Attack Switzerland

by Bill Walker

Switzerland has not been in a war of any kind since 1815. It has not been in an official foreign war since 1515. This would be astounding, even miraculous, for any nation. But Switzerland borders Germany . And France . And Italy . And Austria . And Liechtenstein . Now the Prince of Liechtenstein has rarely lashed out in Blitzkrieg in a desperate bid to reign uber alles, but ALL of Switzerland 's other neighbors have devoted a lot of effort to invading other countries.

In addition to the encircling foreign marauders, Switzerland itself is composed of several different ethnic groups that get along as well as, e.g., Germans and French. But they haven’t ethnically cleansed each other for two centuries, either.

You would think that peacekeeping performance of this kind would make Switzerland an object of study in every political science and civics course worldwide. "WHY Didn't They Attack Switzerland ?" should be the title of many a textbook. This is not the case. Very few political scientists study Switzerland .

Switzerland is of no interest to politicians, because the features of the Swiss system that keep the peace are the same features that make Swiss politicians unimportant. Do you know the name of the Swiss President now serving out his nonrenewable one-year term? No, you do not (it’s Samuel Schmid, but you won’t remember tomorrow). His name doesn't matter, and he doesn't matter to the defense of Switzerland . There is no central location of Swiss defense, no Pentagon or NORAD into which you can crash a 757 or a black-market Kazakh nuclear weapon. The defense of Switzerland is the entire people of Switzerland itself.

The features of the Swiss system for keeping the peace are simple. They mind their own business, and they have very strict gun control. By which they mean that every Swiss male must have a gun, except for those who have to carry a mortar or missile launcher. Females are not subject to universal military training, but if you go to a Swiss rifle range, there are always girls blasting away too. After 9-11, the Swiss told passengers to carry their bayonets onto their airliners . . . somewhat different from the US response of panicked victim-disarmament. (You are aware that 99% of US pilots are STILL disarmed?)

As a final defense, the Swiss have rigged the vaults of their banks for demolition. Any dictator attacking Switzerland will find the gold in his numbered bank account buried in rubble hundreds of meters under a mountain. It is known that Hitler had a numbered account.

Switzerland has also provided for defense of the lives of its civilian population against nuclear terrorism. Realizing after World War Two that nuclear weapons in the hands of power-mad idiots posed a public health threat, the Swiss started a nationwide shelter-building program in 1960. By 1991, there was enough shelter space in Switzerland to protect everyone in their home or apartment, and also enough at their workplace and school. A Swiss citizen is generally never more than a few minutes from a fallout shelter with an air filter.

The entire Swiss shelter program was accomplished for somewhere on the order of $35 (1990 dollars) per year per capita. The US spends vastly more every year to achieve a military only capable of intervening in Third World nations that don’t have WMDs. The combined US armed forces are incapable of shooting down a single ballistic missile, or even intercepting low-flying propeller planes. Nor are there bunkers with filtered air supplies for the inhabitants of our glass cities or crackerbox suburbs. The only civil defense in the US is for the President and the bureaucrats under Iron Mountain . Everyone else is nuclear fodder, except for those provident few (such as the Mormons) who build their own shelters to protect their families.

Switzerland does not send troops to intervene in other nations. Switzerland does not spend tens of billions of dollars yearly to fund dictators around the world, nor did Switzerland donate hundreds of billions of dollars to the Warsaw Pact through bank "loans." Switzerland does not send billions of dollars worth of weaponry every year to the warring tribes in the Middle East . Switzerland has no enemies. Yet the Swiss are armed to the teeth and dug into every hill and under every building.

US policy is the evil-parallel-universe inverse of the Swiss. The US intervenes everywhere, spies on everyone, supports every faction in every dispute. We have as many enemies as there are disputatious people in the world. Yet we spend more effort on disarming our own airline pilots and other law-abiding citizens than on providing shelters for our children against nuclear, chemical, or biological attack. We have an expensive conventional army, and quite a few aging offensive nuclear weapons. But no defense for our children.

But Who Would Attack Us? We’re Such Nice Guys…

What groups might think to benefit from a WMD strike on the US ? A partial list:

1. The US kleptocracy, which has reaped such vast increases in power from terrorism and war. “War is the health of the State,” and terrorism drives citizen support for war.

2. Angry relatives of the thousands of victims of “Shock and Awe.”

3. Fundamentalist Muslim politicians.

4. Fundamentalist Israeli politicians.

5. Every emerging power on Earth. The more the US sinks into the Mideast quagmire, the more chance for new powers to rise to dominance.

6. Citizens of nations ruled by US-backed dictators and oligarchs, who are victims of our Aid To Dependent Dictators programs.

7. FOX News, always looking for higher ratings.

This would have been more concise if I had listed the groups that would NOT benefit from anonymous WMD attacks on the US , to wit, the world’s libertarians, capitalists, and peace lovers of all stripes. Unfortunately, the “non-aggression principle” won’t prevent anyone from being killed by terrorism and/or anti-terrorism. So, we must all determine the best risk management strategies within our budgets.

The Likely Attacks

There are two basic categories of attacks. One type is the Jerry Bruckheimer Movie attack, typified by 9-11. Spectacular attacks that kill only a few thousand people are great for raising the Homeland Security budget, but they don’t raise the individual’s risk level that much. For most people, it would be more worthwhile to put some effort into avoiding heart disease and cancer than to try to avoid random, low-level terrorism. However, it is prudent to avoid targets with high cinematic value, like the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge , Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc.

The second category of attack is the “anonymous warfare” strike, intended to seriously damage the US . While it might be hard for a minor power to inflict crippling physical damage on the US , anonymous attacks can rely on a high “Homeland Security Multiplier Effect.” For every dollar of damage done by the 9-11 attack, post-attack “security” measures have done ten more. And a nuclear attack would make the post-9-11 hysteria look orderly and rational by comparison. One anonymous strike could paralyze the US for decades.

Such an anonymous attack might be nuclear, using the leftover weapons from the Cold War that are available in various backwater marketplaces:

Or budget terrorism could be launched with poison gas, germs, or even conventional explosives planted in vulnerable areas such as dams, gasoline storage tanks, chemical transport trains, etc. etc. etc.

US: Strictly DIY Civil Defense

One might think that a Homeland Security budget of over $40 billion would provide a little bit of protection for US citizens. Governments are never efficient, but some of them at least spend some tax money on its putative purpose. Swiss, Israeli, and many other nations’ civil defense programs distribute gas masks, radiation meters, financial aid for constructing shelters, etc. However, US Homeland security has provided us with: free advice from Tom Ridge . According to Tom, all a US citizen needs for protection against WMD is some duct tape and enough food for three days. Personally, I don’t think that this advice, even in full-page ads, was worth $40 billion. In any case, American families will receive no help from Homeland Security’s new director, either. US civil defense is strictly DIY.

Balancing Risk

A DIY civil defense program is limited by the fact that the majority of our discretionary income has already been allocated to other uses by federal, state, and local tax authorities. Most of us can’t afford to protect our families and ourselves properly, because that money is in Iraq and a hundred other foreign-aid regimes.

Still, most of us can do better than duct tape. Contrary to media “wisdom,” one or even a thousand nuclear bombs won’t kill everyone. Nuclear fallout radiation intensity falls by a factor of a thousand over two weeks, so if you can hide in a well-stocked basement with a crude air filter for that long, you would probably survive . . . IF you knew what you were doing and had made some preparations. Germs and gas have their own limitations, and terrorists probably won’t have the biggest and best of anything. Of course the terrorists still have an advantage, because most Americans aren’t even up to Tom Ridge ’s suggested level of preparation.

There are several elements of civil defense:

1.

Location
2.

Threat warning
3.

Protective gear
4.

Protective construction
5.

Networking

Location, Location, Location

The best location is: not in the US . If your work can be done in Costa Rica , Switzerland , or some other nation that hasn’t attacked anyone for decades, you could move. Unfortunately, most of us have sentimental or economic ties to US target zones.

Within the US : if you live downstream from one of those high dams in California , just stop reading this and get in the car. What were you thinking anyway?

Other places require trade-offs; small towns are safer in most scenarios, but may not have lucrative jobs. If you live in a smaller city, you’re likely to get some warning of fallout or disease outbreak. The safest locations are rural, but not everyone can afford to live well in the country. The general rule is to avoid large cities if you can, and especially Washington , DC and New York . These cities are self-terrorizing anyway, between the draconian victim disarmament laws and the crime.

Threat Warning

9-11 was our warning. Homeland Security has given us hundreds of useless “warnings” since then, but it would be sheer coincidence if any of these actually preceded an attack. The “Emergency Broadcasting System” isn’t going to know about a terrorist nuclear attack until after they see it on CNN. Warnings of biological threats may be subtler; sudden outbreaks of “flu-like” symptoms in odd patterns might be signs of biowarfare . . . or they might be signs of flu, which might kill you anyway since the FDA seems to be protecting us very efficiently from flu vaccine. Again, the best way to have warning is not to be in the immediate target area.

Protective Gear

Minimum: A small water and food stockpile (if you don’t have to leave your house for a month, you’ll make it through plague or fallout a lot more easily).

A HEPA filter in the living room would make Tom Ridge ’s “seal up your bedroom with duct tape” idea work much better . . . as long as the power stayed on. Ideally, you should be able to seal up your house and use a hand-cranked blower to provide filtered air, but now we’re getting into the “protective construction” area.

Cheap insurance would include a gas mask in car, and potassium iodide pills to give some protection against fallout (they also help against nuclear-power accidents, unlikely as those might be). Antibiotics are potentially useful but more expensive and perishable. A firearm (and some practice in its use) is a prudent investment for most people anyway, but is even more important in a scenario when you can’t afford to be looted or carjacked. A high-rate radiation meter doesn’t cost very much, and makes a great coffee-table decoration:

And yes, some duct tape is always a good thing (those two weeks in the fallout shelter might get boring otherwise).

Protective Construction

Optimally, everyone desiring to opt out of the ill effects of war and terrorism could live in a concrete dome, such as those produced by the good folks of Italy , Texas .

100 psi blast waves just slide off a concrete dome (especially if it’s partially buried), as do tornadoes, hurricanes, drive-by shootings, and blast waves from asteroid impacts. Other forms of underground (or hillside, like Bilbo Baggins’) construction can also be inherently attack-resistant. Anyone who is living in a probable target city for economic reasons should at least consider hobbit-style construction instead of Styrofoam and 2 x 4s . . . of course local building codes often practically forbid underground construction.

If you have a basement, only relatively little work is needed to make it into an effective fallout shelter. Terrorist bombs might well be more on the scale of 15-kiloton Hiroshima-killers than the 25-megaton Cold War monsters. A 15-kiloton bomb from an old tactical artillery shell or rocket warhead would have a lethal blast radius much smaller than even a small US city, but fallout could be lethal for 20 miles or more downwind.

The basement is usually easier to seal against chemicals and germs, too. Just remember that Swiss basements have hand-cranked filtered air blowers; if you succeed in sealing up a basement tight enough to keep out VX aerosols, you’re going to need an air supply. Don’t forget to invite Tom Ridge along to crank it for you; he’s not busy changing threat level colors anymore.

Networking

The whole subject of Civil Defense is about preparing for the failure of the normal system of economic specialization. But the more normal social ties that we can preserve, the more effective protective measures can be and the quicker civil society can recover. On a personal level, if all of your friends believe that “the best thing to do in a nuclear attack is go outside and die quickly,” then you should probably try to add a few acquaintances of a more practical bent.

The Swiss have avoided war for 200 years by being mentally and physically prepared for it. Even if Switzerland were attacked by nuclear terrorists, their mental preparation (and their courage, another essential commodity that Americans have failed to stockpile) would save them from hysterically scrapping their Constitution and civil liberties.

We Americans have been at war throughout most of the same decades that Switzerland has been at peace. Now that America has mutated from Republic to Empire, we are at perpetual war with every nation that wants to be independent of the whims of the POTUS. At the very least, we must all recognize the fact, and be prepared for the shocks to come. Civil society can recover from a lot of destruction; it can’t recover from cowardice and refusal to prepare for trouble until chaos is already upon us.

March 3, 2005

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/walker/walker1.html

Baz91
22-08-2006, 12:02 PM
But you should remember that Switzerland helped out the third reich by liquidating all assets of Jews, gypsies and mental health sufferers...

Truth_Bringer
22-08-2006, 04:16 PM
But you should remember that Switzerland helped out the third reich by liquidating all assets of Jews, gypsies and mental health sufferers...

Please remember, all the actions of private banks were not officially sanctioned by the Swiss government. And many Jews held accounts there throughout the war. Evidence was also uncovered that many Swiss citizens had opened several new accounts during that time to actually protect the assets of Jews and other persecuted people. The Nazis also had accounts there, but if you're neutral, you can do business with all sides. You just can't sell anyone weapons. And the Swiss did allow the allies access to most of the Nazi accounts after the war.

janahitwadi
27-08-2006, 04:19 AM
Mr. Truth_Bringer, you have brought out important points why Switzerland did not face war with neighbours and other for a few centuries. Mr. Baz91 has put forward a negative point. In my opinion we should consider points which helped Switzerland in keeping away from war. Our aim is to find a solution for present day war like conditions, be it direct attack or underground activities. I found following points from your essay.


Switzerland is a neutral country. I understand this means Switzerland will not help any one against or for any other nation. I feel we should add in this 'Negotiation with both parties who stand against each other and find a solution' Help both the parties in a peaceful settlement. The first Prime Minister of India (Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru) did exactly same with the help of Egyptian President Nasser and Yugoslavian President Marshal Tito. His efforts did not pay much because of war hungry countries in Europe, Asia and America. People of all nations must consider this alternative.
Switzerland understands fundamental principle of religion i.e. 'Brotherhood' and follows that. She keeps away from internal groups as well as external. Every one must understand religion is a concept invented by the most wisest persons with similar physical characteristics like us but with a strong selfless mind working for good of all people in certain region at a particular period of time. They were neither sent by God nor were god himself. They all had been human like us but more concerned about every one in the society. Their aim had been to create circumstances conducive for living for all. All irrespective of physical appearance, strength and qualities. The God has neither time nor intention to send any one to help a small group on earth. He has whole universe to take care off. He just made rules and allowed incidences as per those rules. These rules are same as rules of Physics and all sciences. The fundamental rule is 'There is equal reaction for every action'
USA is not a dependable nation. She is selfish, short sighted, expecting immediate results and does not believe in peace. War makes her more rich. So it is futile to expect USA would help in peace process.

Truth_Bringer
28-08-2006, 12:05 AM
In my opinion we should consider points which helped Switzerland in keeping away from war. Our aim is to find a solution for present day war like conditions, be it direct attack or underground activities.

Yes, indeed, our goal is peace. Are you from India? I ask because another important concept was used there by Gandhi - the principle of political change through non-violence. If only the Muslims, my fellow Americans and the Zionists would follow this principle... It is a profound principle indeed, and I would rank it as the greatest achievement of the 20th century.

Now, having said that, Gandhi also believed in the right of the people to bear arms and this is one point you didn't address in your reply and another reason why Switzerland has been able to avoid war. They have a well-armed national militia consisting of all the able-bodied men in the country. And yet they do not aggress against other countries. The weapons are used for defense only. So, from both examples, we can see that it is moral to possess weapons for self-defense, but if we want political change, we should practice non-violence to achieve such change.

I fear if the world continues on its present course, World War 3 may become reality. And a grim day that will be in the history of this world.

janahitwadi
28-08-2006, 04:36 AM
Yes, indeed, our goal is peace. Are you from India? I ask because another important concept was used there by Gandhi - the principle of political change through non-violence. If only the Muslims, my fellow Americans and the Zionists would follow this principle... It is a profound principle indeed, and I would rank it as the greatest achievement of the 20th century..

I am from India. Non-violence is a principle or rather Indian way of life since at least 3000 years. India never attacked any nation or had any intention to capture others' territory. Indian philosophy is 'live and let live' since time immemorial. I am overwhelmed by your appreciation of Mahatma Gandhi. It is a rich tribute to him. In fact you are correct in saying if people understand Mahatma Gandhi there shall be peace allover the world. Principle of non-violence only can bring change in relationship among people. Violence destroys, brother hood help people survive. India has a long heritage. Passed through many conflicts. Hence Indian philosophy has reached near perfection.

So, from both examples, we can see that it is moral to possess weapons for self-defense, but if we want political change, we should practice non-violence to achieve such change.

I agree self defence is must. There are enemies apart from other people. To combat with them we must be prepared. There are different arms needed for this. Any preparation to fight against other group of people would be inadequate. There are many examples. Hitler thought he has all the strength to fight with rest of the world. You know the result. Armed strength is never adequate for fighting with other people. Training is required though for fighting with other evils.

I fear if the world continues on its present course, World War 3 may become reality. And a grim day that will be in the history of this world.

World war-III is already on. It is hidden. Certain groups not understanding meaning of religion properly are on spree to destroy rest of the groups. This war is highly dangerous than the open war. Here one doesn't know who is the enemy. Some consider Muslims are enemies. However, there is group consisting of almost all Muslims not taking part in terrorist activities. Fight against unknown enemy is making the world bleed.

janahitwadi
28-08-2006, 10:13 AM
India has a long history. India experienced many things what the world is experiencing today long long back. India produced all time great philosophers thousands of years earlier as well as in recent past. Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Mahavir, Nanak, Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi to mention a few. They all worked for peace and self rule.

Rama lived about 5000 ears earlier. He practiced good values. He ruled no the earth but the souls of people. Even today he is accepted as a mile stone. He taught how to live and how to fight evils, both internal and external. Krishna was not only philosopher but a great politician too. He taught us that if evil is in your nearest relative including your parents then fight with them. He combined philosophy with politics. Mahavir and Buddha refused earthly luxuries (They were sons of Emperors) for themselves and lead people to eternal path of luv and peace. Followers of Buddha invaded entire Asia, not with traditional weapons but with message of Buddha. Entire Asia had been captured by them. With a few exceptions China, Japan, Myanmar and almost all nations in eastern Asia still practice Buddhism.

If you wish to know more I can tell it in brief.

Truth_Bringer
28-08-2006, 03:00 PM
I am from India. Non-violence is a principle or rather Indian way of life since at least 3000 years. India never attacked any nation or had any intention to capture others' territory. Indian philosophy is 'live and let live' since time immemorial. I am overwhelmed by your appreciation of Mahatma Gandhi. It is a rich tribute to him. In fact you are correct in saying if people understand Mahatma Gandhi there shall be peace allover the world. Principle of non-violence only can bring change in relationship among people. Violence destroys, brother hood help people survive. India has a long heritage. Passed through many conflicts. Hence Indian philosophy has reached near perfection.

Yes, there is much to learn from Indian philosophy. I do believe the eastern religions and philosophies are more advanced, and I have studied them to a certain degree. Actually though, I first learned about Gandhi from the following book:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wuapref.shtml

It was written as a warning for America to "Wake Up". There is another book on line written by an American calling for a change to a society of total non-violence. You might be interested in that as well. I highly recommend it. It is a book that should be read by everyone:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html


I agree self defence is must. There are enemies apart from other people. To combat with them we must be prepared. There are different arms needed for this. Any preparation to fight against other group of people would be inadequate. There are many examples. Hitler thought he has all the strength to fight with rest of the world. You know the result. Armed strength is never adequate for fighting with other people. Training is required though for fighting with other evils.

Yes, again, we agree completely. There are those who desire to conquer, but their economies cannot stand the strain of invading and occupying many countries. Which is why the claims that Saddam was the next Hitler were absolutely laughable. We need to create a truly international police force, with members from every single country, to be trained to deal with terrorist criminals like Al Quaeda. There are many in the United States who do have good intentions and believe they are helping the people of Iraq, but they are misinformed. The U.S. presence in the Middle East is mainly to secure the oil and to protect the Zionists. The average American has no clue about this though. Many do believe the U.S. is fighting for Iraqi "freedom."


World war-III is already on. It is hidden. Certain groups not understanding meaning of religion properly are on spree to destroy rest of the groups. This war is highly dangerous than the open war. Here one doesn't know who is the enemy. Some consider Muslims are enemies. However, there is group consisting of almost all Muslims not taking part in terrorist activities. Fight against unknown enemy is making the world bleed.

Sadly, I would have to agree. We are probably already in the beginning stages of World War III.

Baz91
28-08-2006, 03:09 PM
I am from India. Non-violence is a principle or rather Indian way of life since at least 3000 years. India never attacked any nation or had any intention to capture others' territory. .

Bullshit, in a word.
India attacked Alexander, and India more recently attacked Pakistan to capture Kashmir.

Truth_Bringer
28-08-2006, 03:46 PM
India has a long history. India experienced many things what the world is experiencing today long long back. India produced all time great philosophers thousands of years earlier as well as in recent past. Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Mahavir, Nanak, Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi to mention a few. They all worked for peace and self rule.

America's history is not quite as long, but many people here have still forgotten our founding principles. For example, we always hear from President Bush that we must "bring Democracy to Iraq and to every country that doesn't have it. Unfortunately, Bush doesn't realize that America was created as a Republic and not a Democracy. America was never intended to be a Democracy.

The following definitions are from the 1928 U.S. Army manual:

“Democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of ‘direct’ expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

120.

Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.

Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

Is the ‘standard form’ of government throughout the world.

((Ed. Note: This following quote from Harry Atwood is then listed in the Training Manual.)

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. – Atwood

121. Superior to all others. – Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

Democracy is the ‘direct’ rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy, and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”

If you wish to know more I can tell it in brief.

You may do so for the benefit of others who might be reading this thread.

Truth_Bringer
28-08-2006, 05:08 PM
more evidence to show that America was never intended to be a Democracy and was founded as a Republic:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/chu6.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/11-06-2000/vo16no23_republic.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/republic.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest28.htm

janahitwadi
28-08-2006, 05:35 PM
I read what you wrote. Then I studied. I found it interesting. I understand the difference between republic and democracy. I though both mean the same.

As per Henry Kissinger, America looks after her own interest. America never tried to help any one in this world to form a democracy. In most of the cases America helped only dictators like Shah of Iran, military rulers of Pakistan, Taliban of Afghanistan and so many others. So there is no proof in what Mr. Bush says. He also doesn't want democracy in other nations. What he wants is supporters.

However, no nation is prepared to believe in America. The saying '... one cannot fool others always' takes the effect. So others have also learnt to support America if beneficial. Even Israel will refuse to support USA if her aid is stopped.

In India it was always ruled by kings. However king was like a security force and arbitrator. Every village had self governance and village used to pay for the services provided by the king. Now we have accepted democracy since 60 years. So far change of Government had been only through ballot box.

I did not find any other post here, so I will wait to tell more about India.

Truth_Bringer
28-08-2006, 05:43 PM
As per Henry Kissinger, America looks after her own interest. America never tried to help any one in this world to form a democracy. In most of the cases America helped only dictators like Shah of Iran, military rulers of Pakistan, Taliban of Afghanistan and so many others. So there is no proof in what Mr. Bush says. He also doesn't want democracy in other nations. What he wants is supporters.


Yes, that is true. America has supported many dictators over the years. And the U.S. government sold weapons to both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. The U.S. had no problem with Saddam until he did something they didn't like and invaded Kuwait and endangered U.S. oil interests - up until then, he could torture his own people all day long with no uproar from the U.S.

But of course the average American still believes that America is working to secure democracy in Iraq. When will they wake up and see the truth? I do not know, but I will keep trying to inform all those who will listen.

janahitwadi
29-08-2006, 07:30 AM
In my humble opinion USA must accept 'Brotherhood' as the fundamental principle of her constitution. Brotherhood within and brotherhood outside. Convert all weapon producing industry in to 'energy producing industry' i.e. find alternative to oil and then sell equipment needed for the same. USA should develop security systems against all present and future threats rather than weapons of mass destruction. No 1 can use security system to destroy USA but some one may be able to use nuclear arsenal some day to destroy USA.

If there is some change on this line it may not produce magical returns but would ensure safety and peace. In long term USA may be treated as the God.

Baz91
29-08-2006, 08:00 PM
[QUOTE=janahitwadi;13067] India never attacked any nation or had any intention to capture others' territory.

Janahitwadi, you still haven't responded to my earlier post-India have attacked other nations. India attacked Pakistan over Kashmir not so long ago did they?

janahitwadi
30-08-2006, 06:05 AM
[quote=janahitwadi;13067] India never attacked any nation or had any intention to capture others' territory.

Janahitwadi, you still haven't responded to my earlier post-India have attacked other nations. India attacked Pakistan over Kashmir not so long ago did they?

Dear Baz91, either you don't know the history or you are not told facts. I will tell you from birth of Pakistan. During independence struggle for India Indian national congress (INC) played the major role. Members of INC were and are from all religions, faiths, caste and creed including Muslims. Till 1935 no member wanted separate nation of Pakistan. However, Mohamed Ali Jinnah, later the first Prime Minister of Pakistan had a personal ambition to be the Prime minister after India gained freedom from British. He found that competition with Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru would be a loosing battle. He never practiced Islam in its true sense prevailing at that time. He always had been progressive in his thinking and never bothered about religion. His living style had been totally British. However, to fulfil his ambition of 'Prime Minister Ship' he supported Muslim League, a tiny party supported by a few Muslims. He knew that he won't leave long due to his suffering from deadly disease TB. He could not have waited for his turn as Prime Minister. British being interested in having a spilt in subcontinent supported separate land for Muslims. They never wanted a strong nation in southeast. Sarhad Ghandhi, a leader from Baluchistan opposed Jinnah. He went to the extent that Baluchistan be Part of India and not Pakistan. However, he didn't press his demands after advice from Mahatma Gandhi. So this is in brief history of creation of Pakistan. It was not created by people but a few leaders and British.

It was decided among all parties to independence struggle that authority would be given to various kings to merge with India or Pakistan or be Independent. Maharajah Hari Singh of Jammu & Kashmir was in two minds whether to remain as an Independent nation or merge with India. Pakistan forced him to take quick decision by sending her army under the name of 'liberators' Then General of Pakistan Army had declared that next dinner he will have in Stringer (note it Pakistan attacked J&K). Maharaja Hari Singh could not fight with Pakistan Army and asked Nehru to help him. Nehru obliged and Indian army landed in Srinagar within a short period. Srinagar was saved from Pakistan Army. Within a few days more Indian Army landed in the area and pushed Pakistan army behind. Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru being a soft hearted person did not want more bloodshed. He advised Pakistan to stay wherever they are and solve the problems with mutual discussions. At that moment Pakistan agreed, may be because of helplessness.

Pakistan never showed any interest in discussions and finding a peaceful solution. Even on today Pakistan has not changed.

Later, during 1962 China attacked India which had never been expected by Nehru and India. India lost miserably because India had never expected any one would attack India. India had and has strong belief in peace. Till 1962 no efforts were made to strengthen Indian Army. It had been a slightly superior force than Police. Indian Army had always been used only for civil aid during natural calamities. However, Chinese attack made India to think that India is surrounded by nations not believing in peace.

Pakistan understood that China can help her in attacking India and win. Pakistan readily agreed to hand over a chunk of Pak Occupied Kashmir (POK) to China and gained friendship. You might know a story of 2 women and a child, where the judge decided to cut the child and give one part to each of the women. The real mother appealed for not cutting the child and hand it over to the other woman. Judge knew who the real mother is. India never agreed to China to hand over rightful area and took the risk of another attack.

Thinking that China would help Pakistan against war with India Pakistan attacked during 1965. Indian Army gave befitting reply to Pakistan. USA offered nuclear umbrella to India during war but Lal Bahadur Shastri then Prime Minister and Indian people gracefully refused the offer. India won the war but during settlement under the supervision of USSR lost in negotiation. India agreed to stop war and solve all dispute through discussions and negotiations.

During 1970, Mujibur Rehman and his party had won election and established majority in Pakistan parliament. Mr. Bhutto refused to accept it and Pakistan Army helped Bhutto to be Prime minister. There had been unrest in East Pakistan. Because of the conflict. West Pakistan deployed a strong army over 100000 to suppress unrest in East Pakistan. Army killed raped and did all things which cannot be written on this screen. This made people to flee to India. There had been at least 10 million refugees who took shelter in India. This had an effect on Indian economy and appealed to Pakistan to take back all the refugees. Pakistan paid no heeds to Indian request. Then Prime minister of India Indira Gandhi ordered Indian Army to march in East Pakistan and help the refugees to return. Pakistan army instead of helping Indian Army took up a straight fight. Indian Army defeated Pakistan Army and nearly 10000 soldiers were captured as POW. Again India lost on discussion table. India accepted to discuss and negotiate settlement on all issues and agree to release POW without any condition.

The latest conflict had been in 1999. Gen Musharraf, a man with ambition to be President of Pakistan found a new trick to defeat India. There is a large area along Line of control (LOC) where there is no population. India failed to be vigilant in this area. Pakistan army personnel started preparations for a war in Kargil sector. They constructed Bunkers, hideouts, stored rations, arms ammunition and were waiting for attack during winter. This was noticed by some of the Kashmiris (Bakarwals). Indian army did not believe in initially. However soon the truth came to notice of the army. However, by that time Pakistan Army was fully prepared for attack. Atal Behari Bajpai then Prime Minister of India ordered Indian Army to push back the attackers. Pakistan Army had been on peaks and it was very difficult for Indian Army to reach without heavy causalities. Indian Army asked permission from the Government to cross LOC from a suitable location and cut supplies to Pakistan army. However, India believes in principles. The belief is very strong. Bajpai did not accept his army's request. However Indian soldiers are known for bravery and intelligence. Pakistan army was pushed back. There had been large causalities on both sides but more on Indian side.

The interesting thing in the latest Pakistan attack was Pakistan never accepted bodies of dead Pakistani soldiers. This does creates doubt whether Pakistan believes in Islam.

Pakistani population has been made to believe otherwise. Dictators won't allow the truth to trickle down to a common man.

For details read issues of Washington Post or any news paper from Europe Australia, China, Russia or Japan except from Pakistan.

Baz91
30-08-2006, 10:59 AM
Yes...but India has attacked another nation!

janahitwadi
30-08-2006, 02:53 PM
Kindly tell me which nation and when? It shall be all time great news. Even you can get Nobel Prize if you bring out facts to notice of the world.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0