Support UNICEF's relief efforts in Myanmar

Thursday, March 27, 2003

A strong case for the war.

For long I resisted writing - I was afraid my frustration and irritation would have me spewing irrational thoughts. Thoughts that were conjured on ethics and idealism and less relevant to the world we live in; desperate cries from an urge for justice and fairness. All through I tried my best to rationalize. Maybe there was a bigger picture that I failed to see. Maybe I was, true to my nature, being stubborn with my point-of-view and being too judgmental on their point-of-view. Maybe the world would really benefit from this "war of liberation". Maybe this war is after all just and fair. A few days from now, we and the generations to come will be able to breathe more freely with the comforting knowledge that the nation with weapons of mass destruction has finally been subdued and a more responsible government is in place. The air, we will know, will not be polluted with the chemical or biological agents that had been amassed by the bastard regime. Citizens of a nation long subjected to living a life on the edge, will be able to live a life that the rest of us in the free world live. Agreed, it would cost a few thousand lives - but who has known peace without collateral damage?

Saddam is evil. His sons are the devil incarnate. With his evil forces, he has the potential to significantly affect the lives of millions of citizens of the free world. What more can you expect from a man termed "suicidal" by the expert American analysts. After all, he waged 2 wars in the course of a decade. One against Iran and another against Kuwait. So what if Iran was trying to sabotage his administration by inciting the Kurds against him. So what if they were trying to spread their flavor of the Islamic revolution through his nation. So what if Kuwait tried hard to pull down his economy by dropping oil prices and exceeding its intake of their shared oil resources. So what if he had US's clandestine tactical military support during his war with Iran. So what if the American administration had been informed of his plans for Kuwait by him and had shown their disinterest in the on-goings of the region. Every nation has its right to go back on its policies when it deems it necessary as did US when it reconsidered its position on the emerging Gulf crisis and realized that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was unwarranted and illegal as per International protocols - a thought that it had overlooked when it gave him its sly nod. So what if his weaponry, including chemical and biological, were mostly funded and supplied by the American administration. Policies are meant to change with time. The global political scenario is extremely dynamic. And policies should quickly adapt to the fast changing scenarios. What finally emerged was that this "ally" could no longer be trusted. The weapons that the free world trusted him with were now very dangerous to leave in his cold-blooded hands. Here was a global menace that had to be dealt with and disabled immediately. 12 years of global sanctions, 12 years of continuous bombardment were not enough to soften his threat. He had to be taken out once and for all. American presence in the region would alone guarantee that the threat was not merely contained but entirely wiped out. Saddam and his clan of torturous villainous generals had to go.

It takes a nation of great stature and responsibility to rally together the forces to combat such an evil menace; a menace that threatened global peace. It takes a people of selfless ethics and global well-being at their top of their priorities to free the world. A nation with the power to stand up to what it proudly believes in. The one nation that has seen how such threats could manifest up close and personal. No other nation in the world has seen the kind of carnage that hatred can fuel more than the US. The September 11 tragedy was by far the worst act of terrorism in history. Agreed the sub-continent has been through years of violence - be it Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan or Sri Lanka. But it was not to the scale that the Americans underwent. Neither has Ireland. Nor has the Koreas or Japan. Not Russia. Not Indonesia. Not Palestine or Israel. Not Panama or Nicaragua or Chile. Even when some of them did see large scales of death, it was most often, when they were collaborators with an evil regime that made them legitimate targets. This was definitely the case with Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As was with Vietnam. And Dresden. These may have been because of American policies gone wrong, but hey, those policies were meant for the well being of the respective regions. It was not expected to fail. That it did is of little consequence in the face of the intentions that went into making those policies.

When the US funded the Nicaraguan contras, it was meant to free them off an administration that didn't do them justice. So what if the US Congress forbade any support to the guerilla movement in Nicaragua. Some of the elite in the higher echelons of power saw it as their moral responsibility to provide whatever support they could through an illegal sale of arms to Iran and then diverting the sale proceeds to the Nicaraguan rebels. Sometimes, there is no moral high ground in the face of terror. To fight those violating the laws of the state, even if it is the state itself, we may have to resort to illegal means.

When the Americans strengthened Iraq’s arsenal through the Iran-Iraq war, it was meant to help them fight off Islamic fundamentalism from the heart of the Islamic revolution - even if it meant the usage of chemical or biological weapons to counter such insolent acts meant to fuel a nation's citizenry. A savage nation of fundamentalists deserved nothing better. If they were not contained, the world today would see fundamentalist zealots parading the streets and our womenfolk confined indoors. It is wiser to stop the fundamentalists with Mustard gas, Sarin and Tabun than to let their draconian laws guide our society.

Israel deserved to be well protected from the Islamic forces as well. A small nation created to accommodate a clan that had been dealt some of the cruelest blows by Nazi Germany needed all the protection and support to fend itself off from the uncivilized world around it. Even if it meant that its integrity had to be maintained through pre-emptive strikes and by gobbling up regions around it to help better fend itself. If nuclear weapons would enable it to deter the warmongering nations, so be it. It deserved nothing less. So what if the UN didn't see eye to eye on its many flagrant policies. The US would stand by Israel and help it face its woes pondering on paths to peace as it stood on occupied territory and a few thousand dead bodies.

When US placed its missiles in Turkey in 1958, it was merely to deter any ambitious plans that Khrushchev may have harbored against the US. But Khrushchev was way out of order when he decided to place some of his own missiles in Cuba in 1962. It was a direct threat and act of war against the US that violated all International laws and protocols. An embargo against Cuba was necessary. If not for the masterful American diplomacy, an irresponsible USSR would have triggered a nuclear war. So what if some American pilots threateningly over flew the missile positions in Cuba. That was not good enough reason for the Russian Generals to push the triggers on the missiles though they had the authority and approval from Moscow. Their exercising control in the face of a direct threat was a mere act of cowardice - fearful of the repercussions. What in reality warded off the nuclear war was American diplomacy. The Americans saved the day for humankind, as always.

When the US funded the fighters in Afghanistan, it was to ensure that the state of Afghanistan didn't come under the red boots. The Russians had caused enough grief to the Capitalist world as is. Invading Afghanistan was the last straw for the world. Their continued effort to dominate the world with their Communist ideologies had to be countered. And who better than the Mujahideen to counter them. So what if some of them were not an indigenous force and were mainly from the neighboring state of Pakistan. You did not have to be an Afghan to recognize the threat from the Commies. It is a different matter that some of these fighters metamorphosed into the Taliban.

"My enemy's enemy is my friend" policy was one of the preferred policies at that time. A time when precision weaponry and digital warfare were still part of fiction in Sci-Fi books. A time when serpentine clandestine policies would alone enable a "peace and worldly well-being" conscious America to appropriately set the tone for the world to comply with. Yes, sometimes policies gone wrong. Policies that cost a few thousand lives. Policies necessary as temporary measures while gadgets from the sci-fi world were brought to life. Gadgets that would no longer need consortiums to support and justify acts that have to be unilaterally taken based on the perspectives of the folks on the moral high ground.

All of the free world may not agree with the current scenario in Iraq. It could be because they lack the foresight to see the benefits in the not so distant future of such pre-emptive action. They may not agree because they lack the nerve to wage war or even participate in it. They may not agree because of the huge costs of war. They may not agree because of the lives they will have to throw at considerable risk. They may not agree because of their fear of looking bad in history. But in the end, with or without their participation, they will bask in the benefits of this pre-emptive war.

In the big picture, made so very crystal clear by our American friends, war is the price to pay for a better world - a world that we must leave for the generations yet to come - at the cost of a few generations of a nation ruled by an evil regime. Today, we need this war for a better tomorrow. Today, the world has to sacrifice a few thousand lives so the rest of us can live in liberty. And today, in this age of democracy and civil rights and liberty and freedom, whether we choose it or not, whether we want it or not, whether we like it or not, we have this war and the blood of a few thousand on our hands to ensure a peaceful tomorrow. Long live democracy. Long live peace. War today for peace tomorrow. In the name of peace, let us wash our hands with blood. And live on as hypocrites.

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

In the background, war rages on...

While the whole world appears to be focussed on the impending war against Iraq, concerns about the Middle East crisis have taken a back seat. But that doesn't mean that the war unleashed by Israel in 1948 has abated. Not only has the Palestinian body count progressively increased, but peaceworkers are also being targetted. Consider these 2 incidents:
  • Couple days ago it claimed the young life of an American. 23 year old Rachel Corrie, an ISM activist thought, and said as much in a mail to her parents, that she had less to worry about getting killed in the war's heartland than most others because she was an American citizen. She was proven very wrong. On Mar 16, an IDF bulldozer ran her down. It is not clear yet whether it was an accident or cold-blooded murder.

  • Neither did the world hear much about UN worker Iain Hook who was shot in the back at Jenin sometime ago.

But we hear no voices of protest from the US Govt, except a feeble request to launch an immediate probe. And why would we? Right now, US cannot afford to distract the public or itself from its immediate task at hand - the invasion of Iraq.

Meanwhile, Israel ruthlessly pursues its war against the Palestinians, with US diligently supporting its massacres.

Related links:

Justified war?

Came across this interesting quiz, "Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?", a few days back. Not sure if all of the answers are right though. Most sadly are! :(

To do or not to do - that is the question

Am still going through the motions of deciding on what I want to do next. My career seems to have reached a stagnant point. Looking back, its been real nice this far - but where does the road lead from here. I had it all planned to this point; just didn't spend enough time on planning hereon. 10 years back when I thought about what I wanted to do 10 years hence, this is exactly what I wanted to do. I still remember some folks back then scoffing at the idea of me getting to this point this fast - and maybe they would have been proven right if not for the dotcom boom. Dame Fortune walks by me so often that I am beginning to think she enjoys my company! :)

Thinking back on the FoxBASE and FoxPRO days, those were the best days I spent in the technical arena. The days I spent at Oracle were fun - but had less responsibility given that it was a big team spread across 3 continents. Then came the move to the "land of opportunities" and true to the phrase, first week into the new job I got to do what I had wanted to do - Functional Consulting with the added responsibility of Project Management - now that was something I hadn't considered at all. I took it on with a relish and it was soon one project after another - given how fast everyone wanted to get an online presence and capitalise on the boom. And then there was the product management experience. The Content Management product sure has a lot to offer. Hope it sees the light of day soon. Good experience, but now when I look back on it, I guess I moved through the different domains too soon and today what I am is a Jack of all trades and a master of none. And hands-on developing is something left behind in my past. Almost sounds like a past life. So here I am now, turning down possible projects and risking my career and taking a break from it all pondering what I should do next to get back on the right tracks again. I don't want to get caught up in the rapid flow of years again and a couple years from now look back and regret not having made the changes when I could have. So the plan is to ensure I am getting into what I really want to do before I go for it. Till then am going to enjoy my vacation and plan on the side and burn my savings! :)

Thoughts this far: For some time I guess I will still stick to the IT field. I was planning on moving to strategy management sometime around now after a MBA in one of the good schools. But for some reason I don't feel as ambitious anymore as I did a few years back. Not that I am less passionate now; its just the ambition to lead and eventually run a company that has simmered down. More on that some other time. For now, as a first step I guess I should work on focussing on a specific skillset as I used to during the FoxBASE days. All thoughts and research and interests point to EAI, CRM and ERP in that order. Have been doing some reading up on EAI and find it really interesting. Amazing to read about the mess we have left in the wake of building applications after applications. I would blame it on the rush to get things done today and leaving tomorrow for another day. It is the not thinking through that always comes back to bite us. Isn't that true of most everything. Well, lets hope I don't end up the same way and hope I get the thinking through right. :)

Undone by Physics

I dun it again folks. Been wanting to work on the blog everyday...but put it off in the last couple days. But now that I think of it, I am going to get to it only when I feel like it here on. As with all other things I do, I hate sticking to a regimen. Moreover, would give my parents a heart attack if I did! So there. This is not going to be updated as often as I had envisaged when I started this.

The weekend was pretty hectic - drove across to Canada for Rohini's (Surabh's aunt) triplets first birthday and enroute stopped to view the vast Niagra falls on the Canadian side. Quite a view. More on the trip in a bit.

Finally drove Surabh's car to the body shop to get it fixed - been due for nearly a week now. I had not started the blog when I crashed the car and so it didn't find a mention here before. As always, a good pie in my face. Couple days before the accident, when Surabh was driving, she took a particular turn at a slightly greater speed than was safe. So I explained to her the laws of Physics and walked her through the exact forces acting on the car and how it would slide especially given that it had been snowing quite a bit and how it would crash into any of the cars parked alongside the pavement. And 48 hours from then, I did the driving. It had been snowing through the night - 8-10 inches of snow - and I took the exact same curve at a slightly greater speed than I should have and as though to prove my physics theories right, the car went into a slide just as I had predicted and hit a parked car at nearly the same angle I had said it would. It would have been the exact same angle too had I not turned the wheel in a desperate bid to avoid the other car. Well, at least I didn't hit it head-on. So there I was, sitting in the car, feeling sheepish, controlling a stupid grin that began to work its way through my tightly shut mouth and then quickly apologising to Surabh - as is she was running late for work and moreover it was a car she had just bought. Well, fortunately it was not as bad as it could have been. For one, Surabh was understanding, and then the cars were not damaged much and our car was still driveable! I quickly left a note to the owner of the other car and we were soon on our way. Then the usual calls to the Insurance company dreading the impact it would have on my driving record. Surprise of surprises - Michigan state doesn't care about who drives the car, it is the owner of the car who is penalised. Now I am hoping thats not true and do hope that at some point in time my driving record will be updated with the incident; else an innocent person will be paying for my carelessness. So far, haven't found any evidence pointing to my record being blemished though. Crazy world indeed! Anyway, our car took a hit of about $2500. And the body shop guys offered me a discount on the deductible, so would burn my pocket by $400. Oh and when the owner of the other car called and I profusely apologised, he waved my apology off with a "Oh don't bother, its my girlfriend's car"! :)

Friday, March 14, 2003

From the NYT - "Deadly or just bizarre?"
"A drone aircraft said to be the type that was included in Prime Minister Blair's list of demands was put on display today in Iraq. The Iraqi aircraft appeared more decrepit than devastating. It has a wooden propeller and joints covered with masking tape. Brigadier General Imad Abdul Latif, the Iraqi Project Director, said the drone performed so poorly on early test flights that it has been grounded. And he said it would be impossible for the craft, which he said has never flown more than 2 miles, to deliver chemical weapons."

President Saddam Hussien, I hope you have the foresight to submit a revision to the earlier weapons disclosure and include your children's remote controlled "build-it-yourself" planes and cars from their childhood days. As we have seen in Eastwood's "Dirty Harry", even these have the potential to carry remotely detonatable bombs - which with a few modifications could carry chemical and biological weapons. If you fail to do that, you would be found in violation of UN resolutions and automatically set the stage for an US-led invasion. Oh, and while you are at it, don't forget the plant disinfectants in your garage.

New proposed UN resolution: Prime Minister Blair's plans laid bare

Everyday I decide against writing more on the war and everyday President Bush and Prime Minister Blair compete with each other to seduce me with more food for thought! :)

I doubled over laughing when I ran through Prime Minister Blair's new proposal - in his words "benchmarks", which former National Security Advicer Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Carter's "regime") rightly said "seemed designed not so much for acceptance by President Saddam Hussein of Iraq as rejection, and were intended not so much to avert war as to legitimize the participation of British troops". Lets not for a moment forget that Prime Minister Blair's political survival depends to a large extent on the success of the new resolution.

Consider his "benchmarks":
  • President Saddam Hussein should admit on television in Arabic that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that he will give them up

  • Within a week to 10 days of the resolution's passage, Mr. Hussein would have to allow 30 leading Iraqi scientists to go to Cyprus to be interviewed by weapons inspectors

  • Remaining chemical and biological weapons would have to be destroyed, and so would all banned missiles

  • Iraq would have to account for drone aircraft that American officials fear might be equipped to spray anthrax or biological agents

  • Iraq would also have to hand over all mobile production laboratories used for chemical and biological weapons

Quite a list of demands that. Allegations till only yesterday are now set to become demands for confession. Come now Mr. Blair, do you mistake us to be such dunces that we do not see through your ludicrous plans. President Saddam Hussein has already agreed to your 2nd benchmark. Iraq would doubtless agree to benchmark 4 since an "undeclared" drone has already been found - whether the drone contravenes UN conditions (range not to exceed 93 miles among others) is yet to be determined. That leaves us with benchmarks 1, 3 and 5. Should President Saddam Hussein agree to this, it would put him in violation of UN Resolution 1441 which expected the destruction of all WMD and would be strong enough for UN to approve an invasion. Even France, Russia, Germany and China would have no other alternative but to agree. So President Saddam Hussein agreeing to the benchmarks is tantamount to his signing on for an invasion of Iraq. Should he not agree, that would mean an invasion as well. So if your resolution goes through Mr. Blair, then President Saddam Hussein may as well start making his retirement plans, while you can move your plans on how best to relish the spoils of war back from the backburner.

Fortunately common sense prevails. Both France and Russia are threatening to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq - no doubt leaving the field open for Mr. Jack Straw to yet again go on a personal offensive against Mr. Dominique de Villepin. It is crystal clear that if this war is to be avoided, then the new resolution proposed by Prime Minister Blair has to be vetoed or withdrawn.

Do yourself a favor Mr. Blair - do not put forward the new resolution. You will save yourself the ignominy of defeat, some embarrassment and at the same time save both money and time for the cash-strapped UN (as is UK is one of the main defaulters to the UN, though way behind US which owes nearly two-thirds of all outstanding to the UN). And if Dame Fortune casts her chimerical smile on you, you may still manage to retain some credibility with the British public and stand a chance, however small, of salvaging your political career.

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Is Saddam America's stooge?

I have always been suspicious of American policies, given their selfish, serpentine foreign policies and notorious intelligence agencies. So naturally, the current developments over Iraq had me pondering on possible motives/strategies of the US Govt. Here is one of the extremes. :)

Consider the currently developing scenario:
  • US is setting the stage for an invasion of Iraq and its complete take-over

  • Muslim fundamentalists, known to the Americans as terrorists, opposed to US and its "crusading" policies are converging in and around Iraq as they did in Afghanistan a little more than a year ago

  • US has a good guage of who its allies are and those not standing by it in this time of need

  • US is willing to yet again go to war without UN approval, thus explicitly stressing it will not be governed by international policies

  • Saddam is putting on a bold front as he "opposes" US and its allies

  • US has open disagreement with its former allies

Events to follow:
  • US invades Iraq

  • US kills thousands of "fundamentalist terrorists" who have gathered together to fight the "crusaders"

  • Saddam sacrifices a few thousand soldiers and civilians but allows a quick crushing decimation of Iraq's defences and a fast takeover of Baghdad

  • Saddam is "killed" or "captured"

  • US sets up a democratic infrastructure under its SOLE supervision in Iraq

  • US has absolute control of a strategic region - no power sharing with other "developed" powerful nations

  • US controls the huge oil resources of Iraq

  • US assumes the mantle of global policeman with autonomous powers to override the UN, bomb and occupy any place suspected to be a potential risk to the US or its "allies"

  • If Saddam is "killed", he can retire a martyr (which he craves to be) and a very rich man in a fiefdom of his own either in the US or any other location deemed suitable by the US

  • If Saddam is "captured", he could put up a defiant fight in the ICC (which US would concede to sit on or even preside) or the war crimes tribunal in Hague and over a period of time confess to "connections" or "associations" with groups/nations whenever those groups/nations do not find America's favour and provide an excuse for America to play aggressor to "protect" itself

Both US and Saddam stand only to gain if they have an alliance - Saddam playing villain and US the good cop. Saddam will achieve either "martyrdom" or HUGE popularity with the masses back home and will go down in history as the man who stood by his beliefs, his people and his nation against "Christian" oppressors and will continue to live a comfortable life. US solely, easily and justifiably will set foot in a strategic region and leave the rest of the world on tenterhooks with the "Am I next in the cross-hair" question and somewhat dependant on it for oil resources.

So the current scenario could well be a classical case of "Sometimes you have to lose the small wars to win the big battles". If it were not, 12 years ago Baghdad would have gone through what Berlin did in 1945 - demarcated and shared amongst the allies giving US very little control. Why else did they stop a few miles short of Baghdad back then?

I know this is a rather atrocious theory - I find it hilarious even as I read it now; but given who the involved parties are - I would give it some serious thought. You only need to look back in history at America's foreign and national policies:

Proven cases:

Conspiracy Theories:

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Abracadabra - so much magic!

Did you know the word Abracadabra had its origin in a 2nd century poem?

There is a lot of magic happening at this cool site. Been circulating around for quite some time now and has left a lot of people awestruck in its wake.

So is there really some magic at work working its charms behind the monitor in front of you, some wizard or witch waving wands or gazing into a crystal ball to guess the symbol you have in mind? Or is this really a smart trick and a case of extreme creativity by Andy Naughton?

Would hate to break the magical spell and the fun folks. So those who believe in magic, read no further...

As for the incorrigible skeptics out there, here goes:
A number when subtracted by the sum of its digits is always a multiple of 9.
Proof: Consider a number xy. What we have to do is subtract (x+y) from xy -> lets say that gives us z.
z = xy - (x + y)
z = 10x + y - (x + y) [by resolving the number xy as 10x + y]
z = 9x
This proves that z is a multiple of 9.

e.g. If you think of the number 23,
z = 23 - (2 + 3) = 23 - 5 = 18
18 is a multiple of 9.

What does the number being a multiple of 9 have to do with magic? Notice the pattern in the symbol list everytime you think of a number and perform the calculations. Do you see the "magic"???? :)

So is there no magic then??? You only need to look up and notice the beautiful pattern of stars woven in the sky, the beautiful smile on a baby's face, a beaver's dam - for these and so many others, I have no logical answer! :)

Goebbels henchmen: Alive & viciously kicking!

The role played by journalists is very significant in any society. The power that they wield far dwarfs the WMD that the collective world possesses. A power so skillfully applied by Hitler's propaganda machinery under the masterful guidance of Joseph Goebbels during the second world war. History attributed the initial success of Hitler to Goebbels and his henchmen. In his own words, "Propoganda has nothing to do with truth". 63 years hence, the depth of his words holds the fate of a nation and its people and could overtime lead to the creation of an empire.

The American propoganda machinery has been in full swing since Sep 11, 2001. It started as "America's war against terrorism" and over a period of time metamorphised into "War against terrorism" as though to highlight its supposed international backing. All pointers to America's imperialistic overtures hardly stands out in the material dished out by its "journalists". To be fair, there are some who voice their concerns, but those few voices are quickly snubbed and rebuffed as those "Against us". Journalists have been suckered into becoming propagandists singing the matra of "With us or against us" in tune with the concert that is being orchestrated, skillfully at times, arrogantly mostly, by the new age crusaders. Sadly, some don't even realise that they have been manipulated into becoming mouthpieces for the war mongers.

Weapons inspectors can moderate the firepower that nations have under the threat of sanctions; but journalism has no moderators, no barriers. Its a free world espoused well by their freedom of speech. Journalists go a long way in moulding public opinion. Be it educational reforms, public policy, human rights considerations or the need for war - they are always in the thick of it. Such power needs to be channelled by responsible heads. Every word they say is gobbled up by the masses. Camps are formed based on their rhetoric.

The whys and the hows and the whats are the founding principles of the fourth estate. It is to those reporting the "war against terrorism" to ensure they have done their homework well before presenting their thoughts to the public. The difference between their choosing to be journalists or propagandists holds at stake a few million lives. I hope they don't leave Goebbels laughing away in his grave.

Related links:

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

We don't need another empire.

A terrible state of affairs indeed. When I used to read Ludlum I used to love his work especially because the plots though sounding unrealistic, were very well woven together. Most of his books talk of world domination. Someone always plotting to take over the world and the protagonist managing to save the world just before apocalypse. And now as I researched more on how Iraq turned out to be such a big danger to US, I came across some surprising and shocking similarities to the intricate tales by Ludlum. I knew there was a conspiracy underway...but something so explicit and open to the world to see is not what I expected. I was initially sickened by what I read, and now it doesn't bother me as much. I guess I have come to terms with it.

The path we are headed in is sure tragical. A new global empire where the Americans think:
  • they have to strengthen their ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to their interests and values;

  • they need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to their security, their prosperity, and their principles.

  • they need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad.

And folks, the above bullets are straight out of the "Statement of Principles" of PNAC (Project for the new American century - whose members read as the who's who of the American Govt. policy makers - Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al).

Check these links:
Don't miss this article in New York Times, especially the last paragraph -> you may need a log in.
Losses, Before Bullets Fly

Veteran journalist John Pilger's perspective

The president's real goal in Iraq

Kagan's Reaction to 'Bush's Real Goal in Iraq': Comparing America to Ancient Empires is 'ludicrous'

And the mother of them all: Project for the new American century

I hope my CT antennae are over-reacting - but I doubt it. :(

Have a nice "peaceful" day if the "democracy-crazy" Govt of America allows you that privilege one more day - IF that is part of their principles! :)

Finally; my online camp!

I have been wanting to blog for quite a while now; but one thing or the other (read that as procrastination) kept me away. So now, nearly 2 years since I thought I should, I decided to embark on this trail. I guess I owe it to the US administration for setting up my online camp. Their imperialistic policies has had me frustrated for long, frustration more out of the helplessness I feel. And finally I gave vent to my frustration through a few thoughts I penned at, but apparently the "_" in the URL prevents some folks from accessing the site. So am migrating to this URL. Will move the couple notes from yesterday to this site sometime today. Will also play around with the style sheet to see if I can get it more readable.

Not sure how often I will post on this - depends on whether this becomes my "vent window" or if I use it for other reasons as well! :)

Please feel free to mail me your thoughts/comments as you wander through my current online home.

   Copyright 2005
Subscribe to Passing Clouds on your cell phone