US Wars in Iraq and Afganistan are Well Intended Mistakes

Some Americans justify the wars against Iraq and Afganistan are interventions for the good of thier people, and the security of thier nation and the world.They believe that President Must have had evidance on national security risk before taking the last and dire step of invasion.

This is a cruical point,If there was credible imminent threats to US National security then the wars must have been justified under UN Charter of self Defense.

however ,if the wars were not incredible,or fabricated,then these wars are illegal wars of aggression, so which it is?

All what we have to do now is to match the Government Cliams to actual evidance and you will decide for yourself.

there were four basic cliams that were poted by the Political Leadership invading on Iraq

1- Iraq has weapons of mass destruction(WMD),a sacry name of dangerous chemical and biological weapons.

2- US interceped Aluminum tubes that could only be used to refine nuclear material, giving an indication that Iraq has started nuclear program.

3- Saddam has attemped to purchase enriched Urinum from niger, a more constitute evidance of Iraqnuclear Program.

4-Saddam has links to Al-Qaida, the allegaed terrorist that attacked America on 9/11.

Director of CIA acknowledged that all the US intelligance reports "never said that there were imminent threats" this was based on long histroy of intelligence reports.

The fact that all chemical and biological weapons were weak without a delivery system and that Iraq has strong motivation not to use them against US,

The aluminun tube were Small and Has high thickness and using these tubes will be huge step backword as the surface will be anodized that will make more difficult to serve the purpose as directed by the US Depertmant of Energy(DOE) and International Atomic Energy agency(IAEA).

The 3rd argument was based on Niger documents.These papers were written in grammatically poor french and has a child like forgy of Niger president signature and has been signed by the Niger Foreign minister who has been out of Office for 14 years prior to the date of the document.

If saddam was purchasing illegal urinum then both saddam and Niger officials would persist on not having a written record that could document a crime.CIA president warned Us bush not to make this claim.

All US Intelligence reported that no such relationship exists.

US invaded on Afganistan with out any kind of evidance and without the UN Security councel approval.

The President BUSh stated That there is no need to find any evidance or innocence or guilty

We know he is at guilty.

Why now president OBAMA and other leadership communicated these above facts to US public and thier own nation.

Possible Defeat In Afghanistan and Iraq.

Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.
President Bush, speaking on 9/11, had a point. Even some who believe the invasion of Iraq to have been a strategic blunder concede that, if Americans head for the exit ramp, the consequences could be catastrophic. Terrorists could wind up with a safe haven in western Iraq not unlike Osama bin Laden’s old base camp in Afghanistan pre-9/11.

potential consequences.

The other potential consequences? The breakup of Iraq, a Shia-Sunni bloodbath spreading across the Middle East, the massacre of the men and women who cast their lot with America, a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan, an Islamic perception the United States had been routed and a Shia-dominated Iraq under the influence of Iran.
This would be a strategic disaster that would demoralize our few remaining friends in the region and embolden our enemies. It would be a victory for bin Laden, al-Qaida, and Islamists greater than the expulsion of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.
Yet, according to the senior Marine intelligence officer in Iraq, Anbar — the Sunni province that is 30 percent of the country, contains Ramadi and Fallujah, and borders on Jordan and Syria — is virtually lost. Local governments have collapsed, the national government has no presence, U.S. forces are unable to conduct extensive operations.

Bush and Obama"s Goal.

Every American must hope that Bush’s goals, an Afghanistan and an Iraq that are democratic, pro-American and enlisted in the cause of fighting terror, are attained. But we have reached a point where rhetoric must be set aside and realities faced: We face a real prospect of defeat in both wars.
But if we are to prevent that, how many more troops, casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars, for how many years, will victory require? Are we willing to pay the price? And if we are unwilling — November may give us the answer — are we prepared for the consequences of a U.S. defeat in either or both nations?
Make no mistake: U.S. forces are not in any imminent danger of being defeated or driven out. But in both countries, the situation is at its worst since U.S. forces went in, and deteriorating, though we have spent five years in Afghanistan and more years in Iraq than we needed to crush Hitler.

Decisive Test.

In Afghanistan, the incidence of attacks on towns, villages and NATO-Afghan forces has never been higher. Pakistani troops have been pulled out of border provinces, giving the resurgent Taliban a privileged sanctuary. The IEDs our troops face are more powerful and sophisticated. A suicide bomb attack has been mounted on the U.S. embassy.
Germany, Turkey, Spain and Italy are refusing a U.S.-NATO request for 2,500 more troops. The French, too, are balking. Yet Afghanistan is the decisive test of the post-Cold War NATO alliance.

Last Three Options.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, America appears to have three options. Put in more U.S. troops and go all out for the victory of which President Bush speaks. Stay the course, which holds no promise of victory or of any early end to either war. Begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces, and accept the consequences, which could well be what the president warns — calamitous.
The decision is up to Bush and the new Congress, but also to us. No matter which decision we make, Americans are headed for a long, dark night of recriminations not unlike the Truman-McCarthy era.

political way to get the desired results America??????

The wildest speculation of the Obama Leadership Team member, The secretary of defensce Robert Gates sought to defend a massive US missile defense system in Europe by guessing that Iran might fire"score or even hundreds of missiles" at Europe.

The number given on the basis of estimates of Iran's long range missile arsenal, and the fact that best Iran missile has the range which would allow them if fired from the western borders of Iran can go to southeastern tip of Europe.

This would hypothetically allow Iran to realy put a hurting on the nations like Croatia or Macedonia, though why on earth this is the topic of discussion is unclear, as Iran has no conceivable reason for doing so.
This is the plitical reasons and way to to get out the desired results what America wants.

The super power America And India both are going in the same way they are crying about the weapons of thier enemies but no body in this world to ask america that what type of weapons you have, you are attacking on every country you want to aattack by just pretending the terrorism.what you are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is not terrorism.

Thi is another way to sell thier extremly expensive missile defense system to the Eurpeon Countries.

another reason is that Russia in not too keen in US putting Of large number of missile on its Frontiers and Obama adminstration is struggling to convince people, beyond all reasons, Missiles have somthing to do with Iran not Russia.

Afganistan, A war of Lies.

President Barack Obama and Congress are wrestling with widening the war in Afghanistan. After eight years of military operations costing US $236 billion, US commander in

Afghanistan just warned of the threat of “failure,” aka defeat.

Truth is war’s first casualty. The Afghan War’s biggest untruth is, “we’ve got to fight terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them at home.” Politicians and generals keep using this canard to justify a war they can’t otherwise explain or justify.

Many North Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida and Taliban movements.
Not true. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by US-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.

Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Osama bin Laden, on whom 9/11 is blamed, was in Afghanistan as a guest because he was a national hero for fighting the Soviets in the 1980’s and was aiding Taliban’s struggle against the Afghan Communist-dominated Northern Alliance afterwards.

Taliban received US aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and to employ Taliban against Russia’s Central Asian allies. Most of the so-called “terrorist training camps” in Afghanistan were being run by Pakistani intelligence to prepare mujahidin fighters for combat in Indian-held Kashmir.
In 2001, Al-Qaida only numbered 300 members. Most have since been killed. A handful escaped to Pakistan. Only a few remain in Afghanistan. Yet President Obama insists 68,000 or more US troops must stay in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaida and prevent extremists from reacquiring “terrorist training camps.”

This claim, like Saddam’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, is a handy slogan to market war to the public. Today, half of Afghanistan is under Taliban control. Anti-American militants could more easily use Somalia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, North and West Africa, or Sudan. They

don’t need remote Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were planned in apartments, not camps.
However backwards and oafish its Pashtun tribesmen, they have no desire or interest in attacking America. Taliban are the sons of the US-backed mujahidin who defeated the Soviets in the 1980’s. Taliban never was America’s enemy. Instead of invading Afghanistan in 2001, the US should have paid Taliban to uproot al-Qaida – as I wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2001.
The Pashtun tribes want to end foreign occupation and drive out the Afghan Communists and drug lords, who now dominate the US-installed Kabul regime. But the US has blundered into a full-scale war not just with Taliban, but with most of Afghanistan’s fierce Pashtun tribes, who comprise over half the population.

This conflict is now spreading into Pashtun regions of Pakistan. Last week, the US Ambassador in Islamabad actually called for US air and missile attacks on the Pakistan’s city of Quetta, where some senior Taliban figures are said to be located.
The US is sinking ever deeper into the South Asian morass. Washington is trying to arm-twist Pakistan into being more obedient and widening the war against its own independent-minded Pashtun tribes – wrongly called “Taliban.”

Washington’s incredibly ham-handed efforts to use US $7.5 billion to bribe Pakistan’s feeble, corrupt government and army, take control of military promotions, and get some sort of control over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, sparked a firestorm of anger. Pakistan’s soldiers are on the verge of revolt.
So, too, Washington’s plans to build a 1,000-person fortress embassy in Islamabad, a consulate in Peshawar that will clearly serve as an intelligence base, and the deployment of growing numbers of US mercenaries in Pakistan.

It’s all a neat circle. Washington says it will need more personnel and a bigger embassy to supervise the distribution of the increased aid to Pakistan, and more mercenaries (AKA “contractors”) to protect them.
President Obama has been under intense pressure to expand the war from flag-waving Republicans, much of the media, and the hawkish national security establishment. Israel’s supporters, including many Congressional Democrats, want to see the US seize Pakistan’s nuclear arms and expand the Afghan war into Iran. Israel’s hawkish foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, recently identified Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq as the main threats to Israel.

President Obama should admit Taliban is not and never was a threat to the west; that the wildly exaggerated al-Qaida has been mostly eradicated; and that the US-led war in Afghanistan is causing more damage to US interests in the Muslim world – now 25% of all humanity – than Bin Laden and his few ragtag allies. The bombing in Madrid and London, and conspiracy in Toronto, were all horribly wrongheaded protests by young Muslims against the Afghan War.
We are not going to change the way Afghans treat their women by waging war on them, or bring democracy through rigged elections. We are not going to win hearts and minds by imposing a Communist-dominated Kabul regime on pious Muslims, bombing their villages and sending Marines to kick down their doors and violate their homes.

US Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal is demanding 40,000–80,000 more troops. Even this number will not win the war in which Washington cannot even define the terms of victory. The only way to get out of this situation is that they will have to hand over the charge to Afghan people and go to thier homes.

American Attack in Afganistan why?????

Over the years I have heard 10 or more reasons, but not one that is convincing. “This

will not end well,” George Will wrote, and I agree with that. Yes, President Obama inherited the Afghanistan war, but he has dug himself in deeper, and as they say he owns it now. It will be hard for him either to win it or to extricate us.
At first it was retaliation for 9/11. They should “get the people who attacked them,” as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. It is the one reason that Americans understand and do accept. I was certainly in favor of the Afghanistan invasion of 2001, and perhaps that’s why Obama called it the necessary war. Striking at al Qaeda made sense in a way that invading

Iraq never did. But that was a reason for going into Afghanistan, not a reason for still being there eight and a half years later.

When Their bombing missions and commando raids met with uncertain success, the rationale for expanding the war shifted. It was said that They couldn’t let this evil thing called al Qaeda have the run of a whole nation to plot further attacks. That meant They had to get control of the whole country.
Of course you don’t need a whole country — Afghanistan is about the area of Texas, with a population of 30 million — to plan an assault. And even if you do, it doesn’t have to be Afghanistan. How about Yemen or Somalia? Or failing that, an American motel. Some of the Saudi hijackers met shortly before 9/11 in a Florida motel, others at various addresses in Virginia.

The plot succeeded not because they were free of a meddling government but because they enjoyed the element of surprise. They were willing to commit suicide in the planes they had seized — something new in the history of hijacking. The pilot’s cabin won’t be so easily reached in the future.
It would have been nice if their 2001 aerial bombardment of Afghanistan and cave raids on al Qaeda had killed Osama bin Laden right away. Then They could have withdrawn victoriously. I’m afraid that in the end they may be reduced to retreating indecisively, even ignominiously.

Incidentally, Americans can’t rule out the possibility that bin Laden is dead, as Angelo Codevilla has argued. The CIA, surely, has too readily accepted recordings of “his” voice as genuine. Why not insist on video before accepting anything? The national security establishment may want to preserve a formidable foe, just as the WHO loves a new flu virus. Some may recall that the CIA grossly exaggerated Soviet GNP — by a factor of 10, I believe — right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Analysts may be playing the same game now with bin Laden.In November, Obama agreed to a troop buildup in Afghanistan, opting for “counter-insurgency” rather than “counter-terrorism.” Probably not one American in a thousand understood that. It means “enhancing the military, governance, and economic capacity” of the region, Obama said.

Americans cannot win this war for an important cultural reason: theirs is an increasingly feminized culture, so they cannot take the casualties.
For Americans Asian wars will not be sustainable. If the (masculine) British and Soviet empires of the 19th and 20th centuries could not handle Afghanistan then, I don’t see how their feminized culture can do so now.

It is not their duty to give Obama cover on the grounds that a war calls for patriotism, not partisanship. Great errors of judgment must be pointed out, not glossed over. Democrats in Congress will probably want to get out of this war ahead of the Republicans.

Should there be audit for Social Media

In addition to constant listening and alerting to their market, brands should conduct an initial, then annual social media audit to be successful in their endeavors.Just as brands conduct audits of inventory, employees, and budgets on an often annual basis, they should also survey the landscape to find out what customers,

influencers, partners and employees are participating on the social web. Audits are key for identifying priorities, benchmarking previous efforts, and planning for future efforts; the same applies for social media. I’ve been reviewing social media strategy documents from a variety of large brands, and I’ve noticed the following three common traits:

Understanding the Type of Social Media Audit.

1- Initial Kickoff Audit.

Brands should audit their social sphere as part of their initial planning process. Brands should work with a partner to find out the conversation index, top competitors, top discussed phrases, and customer experiences with products and services.
2- Conduct Annual Audits:

Social media teams should work with management and marketing managers to understand how and why the social web responded to activities in the market. Benchmark top advocates and detractors, and determine which topics or products are most talked about. Most importantly, benchmark your own social efforts, measuring the change and analyze what caused them, you’ll need this data as your budgets are questioned. Finally, use this knowledge to set quantitative and qualitative goals of where you want to be next year.
3- Conduct Ongoing Monitoring:

This really isn’t an audit but is key as listening doesn’t just happen in spurts. Brands should be constantly monitoring their brand using alerts and reports. Ongoing monitoring is helpful in responding to the real time web (crises can breakout even on a weekend) but may miss out in seeing the bigger picture and macro changes.
Key TakeawaysI was involved (I come from practice within corporate) in the brand monitoring when I was running the social program at Hitachi Data Systems, I leaned on Converseon and Factiva, now owned by Dow Jones as well as setup Google Alerts and tracked Technorati links. Here’s a few things you’ll need to take into account:
Don’t conduct your audit in a vacuum. Identify the keywords and phrases to measure by involving a variety of stakeholders. Be sure to distribute the findings to stakeholders as well as conduct a findings meeting to discuss next steps
Find a brand monitoring vendor as a long term partner. Find a listening platform that understands your business, and gets the social web –beyond just mainstream media. Forrester has conducted research Wave on this topic to find the right listening platform vendors to meet your needs.
Appropriately Staff and Fund. Don’t expect this partner to understand the nuances of your markets’ discussion, assign a few part time resources internally to champion this audit internally –and don’t forget to budget. I’ve seen many annual pricing proposals at the 100k range –varying on services and number of keywords used.
Love to hear your tips, best practices, and pitfalls to avoid in the comments when it comes to developing an active listening strategy.
Conducting the Audit.
Key to the audit is identifying two or three competitors. One competitor should be similar in size and scope to the entity audited and the second should be larger. If a business chooses to include a third competitor, it is advisable to use one smaller in size and scope.
Identify the metrics for each audit category. For instance, a Twitter audit should include the number of followers and the number following the Twitter account. The number of Tweets is certainly important as it indicates how active the account is with updating followers. Whether the Twitter account is listed may or may not also be important to the business.
Identify the basics of each audit category. For instance, YouTube has many elements beyond simply posting a video that help deliver brand messaging, and each should be identified and explained so the recipient of the audit understands the impact of ignoring or embracing those options. Depending on the type of entity audited, LinkedIn should include a comparison of the company profile, the groups belonged to, and the naming conventions of the groups.
The information is incredibly easy to collect and collate. The most difficult decision is how to analyze the data and what factors are important to an individual entity.

should media Be Trialed????

Should media be trailed that is the question which arises in the Mind of the peoples of pakistan and subcontinent.People’s response was a tight slap on the face of the some group of electronic media people who were desperately trying to arm media with a new function ’Media Trial. Is there any need to mount pressure on Judiciary or influence the judicial system by creating hype in any case? According to the constitution of Pakistan, the judiciary has the power to decide who is culprit in any matter and to the punish offenders through the due process of law.
Recourses the media cannot and should not influence the judiciary in any case. Media, by presenting the both sides of the coin, may build pressure on the administration to look into the matter with honesty. How can media decide who is victim and who is accused.
The media must not claim of being a hope for justice in the country when it cannot get its facts right. We all know what reporter says is not always the truth.
Now, if we believe on media reports, the lot of History of Pakistan and subcontinent may be changed. Is not it….
This may be said that the judiciary is over-burdened and it is in a horrible state but the media no way can fill in. The media is giving mega-publicity to the riots by using words like genocide. This can be said as a practice to add fuel in the fire. Media is not meant for doing any kind of trial but to present the truth to the public and administration in some cases. Some people may say that because of media hype, justice delivered in some cases. But, it doesn’t happen all the time. We don’t need media trials

America funding Al Qaida in Yemen

Failing to eradicate the al Qaida presence by force, Salah summoned the tribal chiefs

harboring al Qaida centers and through them offered to pay the Islamists to

the country. The bribe of an estimated $15-20 million was accepeted al Qaida leaders, presenting themselves to the Somali Al-Shebab Islamist rebels as emissaries of Al

Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), turned up in Somalia to scout suitable areas

under rebel control for new bases, their pockets well lined with US dollars to pay for

their lease.

Our counter-terror sources report that the al Qaida group, which is still traveling around Somalia, has no intention of liquidating its bastions in Yemen, but is using the windfall for expansion to Somalia.

On an Internet and radio address taped from his year-end vacation in Hawaii,

Obama offered his most detailed public account yet of the ties between Al Qaida

and bombing-attempt suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, saying it appeared

that a Yemen affiliate of the terror group "trained him, equipped him with those

explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.

Meanwhile, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,

arrived in Yemen on Saturday to meet with President Ali Abdullah Saleh and

announce that the United States will more than double its counterterrorism aid to

Yemen in the coming year. Yemen's government deployed several hundred extra

troops to two mountainous eastern provinces that are Al Qaida's main

strongholds in the country.

Obama U-Turn on Un Penalties on Iran

President Barack Obama has done away with two key elements of US-Israeli strategic

relations: His administration has given up on stiff UN Security Council sanctions on

Iran over its nuclear drive, and gone back on the longstanding American commitment

assuring Israel of recognized and defensible borders in any future accommodation

with its Arab neighbors.
In the administration's message of congratulations to Israel on its 62nd Day of

Independence, US Secretary of state Hillary Clinton mentions "recognized

borders" while omitting the traditional "defensible."

Washington sources report that following the talks held by Presidents Obama and

Hu Jintao in Washington last week, the Administration is apparently engaged in a

debate about whether to push for tough sanctions against Iran at the Security Council

and run into opposition from China and other countries - or go for a quick UN General

Assembly resolution, which would be non-binding.The view William Burns, Under

Secretary of State for Political Affairs, offered the House foreign affairs committee

last week was that a UN resolution would clear the way for the European Union and other countries to "amplify the impact" of whatever sanctions are agreed on.

Burns avoided mentioning the Security Council and indicated that the administration

had little hope of any effective action on Iran by the world body.

It will be recalled that President Obama twice asked Israel to ignore Iran's missed

deadlines and promised to promote effective UN Security Council sanctions if Iran

continued to spurn his diplomatic efforts for curbing its nuclear program.The last

deadline was in December, 2009.
Yet on Monday, April 19, clearly lagging behind events in Washington, Israel's

defense minister Ehud Barak said: "Now is the time for sanctions (against Iran)."

He was answering questions in a radio interview on Israel's annual day of

mourning for its fallen servicemen.

Neither he nor any other Israeli leader commented on an equally serious setback

for Israel in Washington, which emerge from a conspicuous omission in Clinton's

message of congratulations for Israel's Independence Day, which is celebrated

Monday night and Tuesday:
"I have a deep personal commitment to Israel," she said. "And so does President

Obama. Our nation will not waver in protecting Israel’s security and promoting

Israel’s future. That is why pursuing peace and recognized borders for Israel

is one of our top priorities."

By omitting "defensible borders" from her message, she spoke for the first US

administration to abdicate its guarantee of defensible borders as a fundamental

component of Israel's security, thereby nullifying her and the US president's

pledge not to "waver in protecting Israel's security." This key omission led to

another worrying question about Israel's future borders: By whom must they

be recognized in the view of the Obama administration?

New Place For Al-Qaida,Yemen

The British embassy in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa closed its doors after one or more al Qaeda suicide bombers attacked the ambassador's convoy outside the heavily fortified building and its gunmen were repelled by embassy guards. According to first reports, one person was killed, but Ambassador Tim Torlot is safe.

Counter-terror sources report that the security situation in the Red Sea republic has deteriorated substantially despite the Yemeni offensive to crush al Qaeda strongholds in the country backed by US and British military and intelligence strength. One cause,

according to intelligence sources, is the extra boost al Qaeda gained from US funds

which Yemen president Abdullah Ali Salah secretly diverted to the Islamists in the

mistaken hope that they would remove their bases from Yemen and relocate in Somalia.

Failing to eradicate the al Qaeda presence by force, Salah summoned the tribal

chiefs harboring al Qaeda centers and through them offered to pay the Islamists to

leave the country. The bribe of an estimated $15-20 million was accepted al Qaeda leaders, presenting themselves to the Somali Al-Shebab Islamist rebels as emissaries of Al Qaeda

in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), turned up in Somalia to scout suitable areas under rebel control for new bases, their pockets well lined with US dollars to pay for their lease.

Our counter-terror sources report that the al Qaeda group, which is still traveling

around Somalia, has no intention of liquidating its bastions in Yemen, but is using the

windfall for expansion to Somalia.

US intelligence has long been aware of the operational and logistic ties between AQAP and

the Somali movement. Investigation of the failed Detroit-bound airliner bombing last

Christmas by the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab disclosed that he set out on

his suicide mission from Somalia, not Yemen, as previously reported, and there

too he picked up the elements of the explosive charge hidden in his pants.

The attack on the British diplomatic convoy in Sanaa was not unexpected. Some days

ago, the Foreign Office issued an advisory against travel to Yemen "due to the high

threat of terrorism, kidnapping and tribal violence against western and

British interests."

Palestinain willing to renew peace Talks.

Authority Chairman, Mahmud Abbas stated that he is

willing to go back to negotiations with Israel, without pre-conditions, if the Arab League's monitoring committee session on May 1 approves. "Try me," he said in an exclusive

interview with Israel Channel 2 TV's Ehud Yaari. Abbas appears to have changed

direction after 15 months of stalling against US efforts to restart the talks on one

pretext or another. The US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, who left the

Middle East announced he was returning to the region to

continue his mission , which is three days after the Arab

League meeting.
In answer to a question, Abbas said he had nothing against Binyamin Netanyahu

and is ready to talk to him. He is Israel's elected leader, said Abbas, and has a

parliamentary majority.
He stressed that certain issues had been agreed and settled in talks with Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, then foreign minister. One of those issues was security in the areas to be handed over to the Palestinian state. It had been agreed

that NATO personnel under US command would be deployed in the West Bank

and along the Jordan River, he said.
Settlement blocs and territory swaps would be subject to negotiation between the

Palestinians and Israel, said Abbas, and a solution could also be found for the

Palestinian refugee problem.Asked about Palestinian Prime Minister Salam

Fayad's pledge to establish a Palestinian state by 2011, Abbas said clearly: "We are

against unilateral steps."
Regarding the future of the Gaza Strip, he said there had been good progress in the

quest for reconciliation between his Fatah movement and Hamas.
Last Friday, the Palestinian leader speaking to his Fatah party appealed to President

Barack Obama to "Impose a solution" of the Middle East conflict. He rejected out

of hand a new Israeli proposal of temporary borders for a Palestinian state on 60

percent of the West Bank.
In the meantime, the Obama administration met Israel halfway on its demand for a

construction freeze in East Jerusalem, accepting that Israel would quietly suspend

building licenses and other permits for just four weeks, giving Mitchell a chance to

persuade Abbas to joint US-moderated talks with Israel.

Israel Could use Ballistic Missile against Iran

Ballistic missiles could be Israel's weapon of choice against Iranian nuclear facilities if it decides on a pre-emptive attack and deems air strikes too risky, according to a report by a Washington think-tank. Israel is widely assumed to have Jericho missiles capable of hitting Iran with an
accuracy of a few dozen metres (yards) from target. Such a capability would be free of warplanes' main drawbacks -- limits on fuel and ordnance, and perils to pilots.
Extrapolating from analyst assessments that the most advanced Jerichos carry 750 kg
(1,650 lb) conventional warheads, Abdullah Toukan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said 42 missiles would be enough to "severely damage or demolish"
Iran's core nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak.
"If the Jericho III is fully developed and its accuracy is quite high then this scenario
could look much more feasible than using combat aircraft," he said in the March 14 report,
titled "Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Development Facilities".Israel,
whose jets bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 and mounted a similar sortie over Syria in 2007, has hinted that it could forcibly deny Iran the means to make an atomic bomb.
But many experts believe the Iranian sites are too distant, dispersed and protected
for Israel's warplanes to take on alone.Israel neither confirms nor denies having Jerichos, as part of an "ambiguity" policy veiling its own assumed atomic arsenal.
Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. air force colonel who runs war games for various government agencies in Washington, cast doubt on the usefulness of ballistic missiles against Iran,
noting, for example, the robust fortification at Natanz.This, he said, would required that attackers "burrow" into the targets using multiple, precision-guided bombs
dropped by plane: "The American conclusion is that the only way to get deep enough
is to put a second warhead into the hole of the first."
Loath to see further destabilisation of a combustible region, the Obama administration
has championed engaging Iran diplomatically. Some U.S. officials have signalled
unhappiness at the idea of Israel going it alone against its arch-foe.
Reprisals.
Tukan said a Jericho salvo could draw an Iranian counter-attack with Shehab missiles.
Other reprisal scenarios include Iran choking off oil exports, hitting U.S. Gulf assets,
or ordering proxy attacks on Jewish targets abroad.
Some Israeli experts have been dismissive of the Shehab threat, citing intelligence
assessments that Iran has deployed fewer than 100 of the missiles and that, if fired,
most would be destroyed in mid-flight by Israel's Arrow II interceptor. "Under such circumstances, we would expect little more than a repeat of the Gulf war," said one
-general, referring to Iraq's firing of 40 Scud missiles at Israel during
the 1991 conflict. Those attacks inflicted damage but few casualties.
The Arrow II also provides some protection for Jordan, an Arab neighbour of
and which Toukan saw becoming "Ground Zero if a ballistic missile
exchange takes place".
He noted that any Jericho strikes on Iran -- which has denied seeking nuclear
weapons but vowed to retaliate if attacked -- would be complicated should
Tehran obtain the most sophisticated version of Russia's S-300 air-defence system,
which can tackle ballistic missiles as well as invading planes. Israel could face a
further difficulty in mounting a sneak Jericho attack because its strategic air bases
are located near population centres. The unannounced test launch of what was
believed to be a Jericho III outside Tel Aviv last year became public knowledge
within minutes.
But that may be the extent of Iran's forewarning. According to an Israeli defence
consultant, only the United States and Russia have put up satellites capable of
spotting ballistic missile launches in real time, "and it's highly unlikely that the
Iranians would get access to that information".The consultant, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, played down the notion of ballistic missiles being used for
conventional attacks: "You look at any major Western military, and you'll see that
such strikes are the purview of manned warplanes, while ballistic missiles are
reserved for nuclear-strike scenarios."
But despite of all these facts and figure it is not going to be easy for them to do so alone.

sanctions Tradeoff Against Iran

Chinese president Hu indicated a willingness to consider abstaining on a UN security council vote imposing sanctions against Iran - if the United States reciprocated by withholding its

vote on sanctions against Israel over its construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. sources report that US president Barack Obama did not reject the idea out of hand when it

was raised in his hour-long telephone conversation with President Hu Thursday, April 1.
They decided to talk again about a coordinated, tit-for-tat US-Chinese sanctions deal with regard to Israel and Iran when they meet at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington

on April 12-13. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was invited to the conference; Iranian leaders were not. After the Obama-Hu phone conversation, the foreign ministry in Beijing delivered the Chinese president's consent to attend the summit. His reply was delayed

to signal displeasure over US arms sales to Taiwan and Obama's White House welcome for the Dalai Lama. It would be the first time a US president has come close to considering withholding his veto from an anti-Israel resolution at the Security Council. This implied willingness

may have been partly responsible for breaking the ice in Sino-US relations.According to our Middle East sources, White House officials dealing with Arab governments were quick to pass the word around of the evolving Obama approach. They tied it in with the US president's

special envoy George Mitchell's new plan to push for a negotiated Israel-Palestinian deal

on the borders of a Palestinian state to be struck within four months. Mitchell arrives in Jerusalem on April 12 - shortly before the Israeli prime minister is due to take off for Washington.
The two combined US steps add up to a further widening of the Obama

distance from Jerusalem, a rift which may even lead at some point to his

parallel condemnatory sanctions against Israel and Iran. He is determined to force the Netanyahu government to bow to Washington's say-so on issues vital to Israel's security,

namely the Iranian nuclear threat and its claim to secure borders.Beijing's turnabout on sanctions against Iran brought Saeed Jalili, the director of Iran's National Security Council, running to Beijing Thursday to demand explanations. The US president's openness

to Beijing's proposed sanctions trade belies the outreach his aide Dan Shapiro,

National Security Council Middle East Senior Director, sought to achiieve in a

to Jewish community representatives Friday. He tried denying relations were in

crisis after Netanyahu's chilly welcome at the White House last month and insisted

that there had been more agreement than disagreement between the two leaders.

Washington sources report that the American-Jewish leaders addressed by Shapiro

received his message with extreme skepticism.

Iran, The New Nuclear Club Member.

Iran had plenty to celebrate on its National Nuclear Day Friday, April 9. President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled the new "third generation" centrifuge which he claimed
was capable of six times the speed of the machines in current use in Natanz and there
and then proclaimed Iran a nuclear power.
He had three more reasons to crow: 1. Iran's first atomic reactor at the southern
town of Bushehr began its main and final test at high temperatures after eight
months of test runs. If all the components of the Russian-built 1000-megawatt plant
work smoothly, the reactor will finally go into full operation in June or in August at
the latest after years of delays.
Mahmoud Jafari, who heads the project, said all parts are working well and there is
no reason why the plant should not start producing electricity before the end of this
year. On March 18, Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin also said Bushehr would
go on stream this summer. military sources report that the spent fuel rods from this
reactor will soon be providing Iran with an easy and plentiful source of
weapons-grade plutonium.
2. So too will the Arak heavy water plant which Iran has been building secretly southeast
of Tehran in violation of its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations. Work there was
discovered this week to have advanced by leaps and bounds and brought the project
close to completion, against all estimates that the reactor would not be ready before
2015. Our military and intelligence sources note that Arak and Boushehr will combine
to provide Iran with the large quantities of plutonium for nuclear warheads. This fissile
material has advantages over enriched uranium in its accessibility from heavy water
and light water reactors, its smaller size for a nuclear explosion, and its use in smaller
and lighter nuclear warheads for delivery by smaller missiles.A former IAEA official,
John Carlson, once warned that large light water reactors "of the sort Iran is building
at Bushehr can produce 330 kilograms of near-weapons grade plutonium - enough to
make more than 50 crude nuclear bombs." The process of separating plutonium from
spent fuel "employs technology little more advanced," he said, "than that required for
producing dairy products or pouring concrete."3. Jafari also announced on the occasion of National Nuclear Day that Iran had uncovered in the central province of Yazd large new
deposits of uranium ore plentiful enough to make Iran independent of foreign imports
for both its military and civilian needs. political sources add: These three breakthroughs on Iran's road to a nuclear weapon are radical enough to put Tehran in the driving seat in negotiations with the 5+1 Group (five permanent UN Security Council members plus
Germany) over its illicit production of enriched uranium and their offer to process it
outside Iran as a compromise gesture. Iran has shown the world it no longer needs
outside help for reprocessing uranium up to the critical 20 percent level, which is a
short jump to weapons grade and the fissile core of a nuclear bomb. Tehran has made
good use of every second allowed by the US-led world powers' lame efforts to dissuade
it from its nuclear goals by means of partly-effective sanctions, attractive incentives and diplomatic engagement, a policy which gained momentum after Barack Obama became US president. Even this week, he was still telling Tehran that the door to diplomacy still stood open.

Idea behind Us Nuclear Summit

If Iran is attacked, nuclear devices will go off in American cities
This warning, along with an announcement that Iran would join the world's nuclear club
within a month, raised the pitch of Iranian anti-US rhetoric to a new high Tuesday, April
13, as 47 world leaders gathered in Washington for President Barack Obama's Nuclear
Security Summit. The statement published by Kayhan said: "If the US strikes Iran with
nuclear weapons, there are elements which will respond with nuclear blasts in the centers of America's main cities." For the first time, military sources report, Tehran indicated the possibility of passing nuclear devices to terrorists capable of striking inside the United States. Without specifying whether those elements would be Iranian or others, Tehran aimed at the heart of the Nuclear Security Summit by threatening US cities with nuclear terror. Iranians sources report that Tehran is playing brinkmanship to demonstrate that the Washington summit, from which Iran and North Korea were excluded, failed before it began, because terrorist elements capable of striking inside the US had already acquired nuclear devices
for that purpose. Although Iran has yet to attain operational nuclear arms, our military
sources believe it does possess the makings of primitive nuclear devices or "dirty bombs."
In an interview ahead of the summit, President Obama warned: "If there was ever a
detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications... would be devastating."In another shot at the summit, Behzad Soltani, deputy director of Iran's
Atomic Commission, announced Tuesday: "Iran will join the world nuclear club within a
month in a bid to deter possible attacks on the country." He added: "No country would
even think about attacking Iran once it is in the club."
The Iranian official's boast was run by the Fars news agency, published by Iran's
Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Behzadi further pointed to the construction of 360 MW nuclear power plant and a 40
MW research reactor in Iran's central city of Arak, claiming the projects were 70 percent complete. This plant is generally believed to have been built to enable Iran to produce
weapons-grade plutonium as an alternative weapons fuel to highly-enriched uranium and material for radioactive weapons.Sunday, April 11, reported that Iran is making much
better progress than Western and Israeli intelligence estimates have held toward
completing the Arak heavy water reactor. Along with the strides made in its nuclear manufacturing capacity, Tehran's anti-US rhetoric has grown more strident in the past
week.
Iran's Armed Forces Chief of Staff Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi said if the United States
made any military moves on the Islamic Republic "
none of the American troops in the region would go back home alive." military sources
report the presence of app. 220,000 US soldiers in the countries around Iran, including
Gulf bases and waters, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian general was reacting to US
defense secretary Robert Gates' warning that Washington's policy decision to limit the
use of nuclear arms if attacked did not apply to Iran and North Korea.
this all was the back ground of the new Us nuclear policy.

Does India Not Come Under American New Nuclear Policy.

President Barack Obama is making the prevention of nuclear terrorism a top goal of U.S. atomic policy and He also would limit the role of nuclear weapons in national defense.

He has issued new nuclear policy. in this policy report he has discussed about the nuclaer programs of Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea.

He did not discussed about the India.

About Russia they reported.

Mr. Obama’s plan is to put new limits on the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. The policy review precedes the signing of a nuclear-arms treaty with Russia on securing nuclear weapons material and preventing the spread of such arms.

About China they said that

The report cites concerns about China’s stance on nuclear weapons even though the Chinese arsenal is much smaller than that of the U.S. and Russia.
“The lack of transparency surrounding its nuclear programs — their pace and scope, as well as the strategy and doctrine that guides them — raises questions about China’s future strategic intentions,” the report says.

About Iran and North Korea they reported in such a way.

Iran and North Korea are singled out in the report for violating “non-proliferation obligations” and defying the United Nations Security Council in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile systems to deliver nuclear payloads.
This policy contains a “very strong message” to Iran and North Korea should they launch an attack against the U.S. or its allies, and that “all options are on the table” for a U.S. response.

Issuing a Warning
A warning is also included to “proliferating states” that any attack on the U.S. or its allies will be defeated and any state’s use of nuclear weapons would be met with a response that is “effective and overwhelming.”

About pakistan they reported that

Pakistan nuclear Plan Is in strong Hands in pakistanis have made it in safe process.

But they told nothing about the India's Nuclear Program which is the most unsafe program in the whole world.Is there not a kind of diplomatic policy...................

Is there any way they have a civil nuclear agreement with India.

Is there any power in this world that dare to ask America that why you are not looking towords india's nuclear program.

To do the justice and for the fair play you should treat the All the Countries in the same way other wise unbalance of Power will take and it will be dangerous.

American new Nuclear policy.

A few days before American president obama Declared his new Nuclear policy about The World.

President Barack Obama is making the prevention of nuclear terrorism a top goal

U.S. atomic policy and He also would limit the role of nuclear weapons in national defense.
The president’s Nuclear Posture Review calls for “a broader approach to deterrence” than dependence primarily on the threat of a retaliatory nuclear strike, while warning of

dangers of nuclear technology spreading to terrorist groups.“The greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by

extremists and nuclear proliferation to an increasing number of states,” Obama said in a statement. “For the first time, preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is now at the top of America’s nuclear agenda.”

Mr Obama’s plan is to put new limits on the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. The policy review precedes the signing of a nuclear-arms treaty with Russia on securing nuclear weapons

material and preventing the spread of such arms.
‘Balanced and Comprehensive’
A balanced and comprehensive approach” to making the U.S. more secure while also

steps toward Obama’s goal of reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

While the policy de-emphasizes nuclear weapons as instruments of power, it says “

remains a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play

role in deterring a conventional or chemical, biological attack against the United States

or its allies and partners.”

This policy contains a “very strong message” to Iran and North Korea should they launch an attack against the U.S. or its allies, and that “all options are on the table” for a U.S. response.

Issuing a Warning.

A warning is also included to “proliferating states” that any attack on the U.S. or its allies

will be defeated and any state’s use of nuclear weapons would be

The report cites concerns about China’s stance on nuclear weapons even though the Chinese arsenal is much smaller than that of the U.S. and Russia.

The Obama Said that Pakistani Nuclear program is in safe now and Pakistani Government has covered it.
“The lack of transparency surrounding its nuclear programs — their pace and scope, as well as the strategy and doctrine that guides them — raises questions about China’s future strategic intentions,” the report says.

Obama has called for the abolition of nuclear weapons. The review provides the

and the strategic framework to further that goal for the next 10 years..
The People says the administration will pursue discussions with Russia on further

reduction that could be “broader in scope” than those included in the most recent treaty.
Obama told that it is a “moral responsibility” to lead an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, .”
No New Nuclear Weapons.

The policy says no new weapons but what is this...........................................................

The new nuclear policy would seek to isolate countries that aren’t in compliance with non-proliferation obligations, an administration official who briefed reporters said. In the

review, Obama rejects the development of new nuclear weapons while increasing

efforts to modernize the current arsenal.
The review endorses keeping in place — albeit in smaller numbers — the U.S.

triad of submarine-launched D-5 Trident missiles, land-based missiles and heavy bombers.
And although the review focuses mostly on strategic nuclear weapons, it also says the

U.S. needs to retain a capability to launch if needed so-called “non-strategic

nuclear weapons.”

The Air Force, for example, is directed to eventually upgrade its new F-35 fighter to

carry both conventional and nuclear weapons.
Upgrading the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 to carry the B-61 nuclear bomb on aircraft deployed overseas is one of several initiatives the report outlines as important to reassuring allies of a U.S. commitment to nuclear deterrence.

Are American Leaving Afganistan?????

Today the question is

are Americans Soldiers Leaving Afganistan.

last month American President Came on a sudden and unscheduled tour in Afganistan.There he delievered a Speach to the Americans and native forces to encourage thier morals and ensures them that they are doing an excellent job for the United states of America and american People.

What the Fact under line is that the American And Western forces have fad up with this un attainable struggle against the wariers of the century.

Reports shows that rate of assination of American soldiers is increasing day by day by the Talibans and native peoples. this is creating a big desperation among the western soldiers.

almost 50% soldiers are about to mad they have reached in such a state that they are killing themselves. this is also causing great confusion among higher authorities.

Americans have reached in such a state that they are about to fly from Afganistan and will never come back.

The Loss and expenditure of America in Afganistan is also increasing day by day just like a big giant.

To tell you the Truth,
it's time for President Obama to reverse course and leave Afghanistan, as well as Iraq.
Leaving Afghanistan will not only relieve the explosive pressure inside Pakistan and give Islamabad a chance to restore order, it will also give Russia, Iran and India time to ponder what they will do in Americans absence. All three have far more at stake in the region than the United States does.

Are American Leaving Afganistan?????

Talibanization in Pakistan is not Over.

The news correspondent reports that Al-Qaida Talibans Have appointed two new assistants Taliban Leaders in pakistan.It neans that talibanization in Pakistan is not yet over.

Recent terrorist attacks also proves the same philosphy.

Actually the fact of the day is to wipe out Talibans from the surface of the earth is not an easy task.The only way through which this can be eleminated is to bring equalization in the society.

Until and unless it can be done. when we will finsh this class differientation after that no body will try to threaten the law and will not go in the hands of anti -State acters like Al-Qaida and Others.Seperation of the society into different departments provides the basis for that e.g

This is Executive class, this is midle class, this is lower midle class, this is baggers class,

When lower midle class type people could not get thier right through proper channel then they try to get them through improper channel.this causes the production of Anti-state activities.

Pakistan Forces are trying thier level best to wipe out This Talibanization But You Cant get your results without doing this.

Paistan Government policies are also the main cause of this increase in terrorism.High Commudities, Oil, Utilities Bills prices. These all should be revised if you anta prosperous Pakistan.

Young Generation can take in Achieveing this goal through Honesty ang Hard Working.

Main Cause Of Pakistani Terrorism Situation

The main cause comes under a deed of agreement which U.S Government made by the Pakistani Government.This agreement states that

(1)- Stop all Al-qaida Operations at your borders,Block armed shipment through Pakistan and end all logistical support for Bin Laden.

(2)- Provide the united states with blanket overflight and landing rights to conduct all necessary intelligence operations.

(3)- provide territorial acess to U.S and Intelligence as needed and other personel to conduct all necessary operations.

(4)- provide the U.S immediately intelligence ,immigration information and database about internal security .

(5)- pakistan government should condemn publically all terrorist attack.

(6)- pakistan should break diplomatic relationship with Talibans.

some of these demands were accepted as it is and rest were in some deformed form.

Objective Behind Hilmand Attack????

Question of the day is, what is the objectives behind Super power attack in Hilmand?

There are many causes behind this along withone that America has explained.Hilmand is the centre of Al-Qaida and Taliban in Afganistan.

Other reasons which are in the main objective are as fallows.

Firstly, this land is full of natural resources. all the precious crops and metals are presnt here, even the most important Urinum is present here.Super powers have already transferred thier mechaniary to extract Urinum.

Secondly, This part of Afganistan is linked with Gwader Port, so by sitting here super power can control the trade of Pakistan and China,

Thirdly,This land is near Iran, Which is another Nuclear power and danger for super powers. they can control Iran from here.the plan is to keep an eye on Thier Nuclear plan.

Are Americans fool???????

American exterior minister has said that America has no danger from Iran and its nuclear Program.America has abig danger from Al-Qaida.How amazing and interesting question is if any one in this world is dare to ask from America.
you are super Power.you have ruined Afganistan and Iraq.You have ruined thousand billions dollar against Al-qaida. still you are not been able to capture Al-Qaida that clearly indicates that something wrong in the bottom.
so with game plan is America going to make fool to Americans, to the world???????????????
This is not the story of a generation it is the story of series of generations.

Al-Qaida a Key Enemy for India.

currently Al-Qaida is becoming a Key enemy for India Who assumes itself to be the next super power. For them all what happened in India, Pakistani taliban and Al-Qaida are responsible for that.In Bombay attacks they thought and infact they ionvolved pakistan.but they donot know and no body in this World to tell India that India should give equal rights to its nation. They are not doing so and that is the main cause behind Bombay attacks.
no body is there to tell India that there are one thousand and twelve seperation movements are progressing in India. that is the main cause of terrorist attacks in India.
india has black listed Thirty four(34) such Organizations but could not control them uptill today.
If India will not give equal rights to its nation then it is possible that India will have to split itself atleast ten equal pieces.

Thirst for Oil.

as mentioned in the aims of Al-qaida formation,Capturing the world Oil resources was the main purpose,That is why they played the game of 9/11 on the great purposes and captured on Iraq, the one of the Largest oil resources holder in this world.This thirst of oil is not over yet.this thirst is going on and on and possibly the next target of All super power s is Iran. Which is another big Oil spplier in this world.Super power in collaburation with Al-Qaida are planning to Attack on Iran possibilly in Next few years.

Motto of Al-Qaida Leadership.

When we study the histry of Al-Qaida, we come to know about the motto of the AL-Qaida is to use the power of the people / power of the countery like a tissupaper
until they are in your favour and when thier favour changes against you(nominal super powers and hidden leadership of Al-qaida) then crush them out and through in the dust bin.This idea clearly tells the story of what is going on today in this world.
what they have done in Afganistan,They use the people of Afganistan against thier enemy i.e againgst Russia in the year 1990s.When Afganistani refused to obey them
they tend to wipe Afganistani Leadership out of this world.But the fact is these
super powrer did not know that they have enterd in such a Sahahra Desset where thier is no water for life.they have to decide wisely that what to do because this land is not going to forgive you easily. Most probably thier dead bodies could never find thier last rest place.