If ever there was an issue where people will argue from their entrenched positions, the powder keg in the sub-continent is it:
There have always been tensions and wars in the region, as there have been in the Balkans and the Middle-East but the question is who is fomenting it? The first thought is a geographical one - if it's in India, it must be Pakistan, if in Iraq, it must be Iran and America.
But if you dig deeper than that, it is the ones who stand to profit, as they always have, from financing these things, the ones who profess a neutrality and yet have an almost religious commitment to depopulation. Doesn't matter where it is - Rwanda and Kissinger, the Sudan and the UN, Kosovo - destabilization, misery and depopulation are the key agendas.
It begins to look some sort of global 'club", membership of which requires an atrocity in your country for entry. Australia, whose foreign policy closely mirrors the U.S., kicked off with its Port Arthur, the U.S. followed up with 911; Russia, who were interested in playing in the world market economy at that time, had its theatre and Beslan atrocities, Britain did its bit to mark the Olympic "success" and now India has its own.
On safer ground, which pundits can more readily accept:
Add to that Gates' Afghan Tajik army proposal. In all of this is the forcing of parties in the region into more polarized positions and after all that, there is always the Kashmir issue to reignite. The warmongers are spoilt for choice. It's odds on that the U.S. will be the stirrer wherever they go, certainly in the minds of non-Americans.
Yet who is the U.S.? Certainly not the citizens, as witnessed in the anti-war movement. The leadership then. As Franklin Roosevelt wrote to Colonel House on Nov. 21, 1933:
Meanwhile, people continue to slaughter one another and the government seems powerless:
Curious how exactly the same situation existed at all the other atrocity points, especially in Russia, which is a controlled space. Curious how so much incompetence has reared its ugly head worldwide just in the last few years, how the global collapse has accompanied the advent of terror and the re-opening of old war zones.
Curious how it blows up in one region, whilst the others remain relatively stable, then, when that region sees "peacekeepers" going in to thrash out a deal, the focus moves to another region - but no two at the same time.
The point is, the India-Pakistan adversarial relationship with its undercurrents of mutual suspicion and bristling with countless animosities bordering on hostility, is so delicately poised at any given moment that it doesn't need more than a few hours to degenerate into a conflict situation on account of a misstep or two on either side, even when it is camouflaged in veneers of cordiality as it has been during the past three to four years.
There have always been tensions and wars in the region, as there have been in the Balkans and the Middle-East but the question is who is fomenting it? The first thought is a geographical one - if it's in India, it must be Pakistan, if in Iraq, it must be Iran and America.
But if you dig deeper than that, it is the ones who stand to profit, as they always have, from financing these things, the ones who profess a neutrality and yet have an almost religious commitment to depopulation. Doesn't matter where it is - Rwanda and Kissinger, the Sudan and the UN, Kosovo - destabilization, misery and depopulation are the key agendas.
It begins to look some sort of global 'club", membership of which requires an atrocity in your country for entry. Australia, whose foreign policy closely mirrors the U.S., kicked off with its Port Arthur, the U.S. followed up with 911; Russia, who were interested in playing in the world market economy at that time, had its theatre and Beslan atrocities, Britain did its bit to mark the Olympic "success" and now India has its own.
On safer ground, which pundits can more readily accept:
The current US thinking leans towards equipping select Pashtun tribes to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is a controversial move that worries the Pakistani military, as it might ignite violence in the Pashtun regions inside Pakistan and fuel the Pashtunistan demand.
Add to that Gates' Afghan Tajik army proposal. In all of this is the forcing of parties in the region into more polarized positions and after all that, there is always the Kashmir issue to reignite. The warmongers are spoilt for choice. It's odds on that the U.S. will be the stirrer wherever they go, certainly in the minds of non-Americans.
Yet who is the U.S.? Certainly not the citizens, as witnessed in the anti-war movement. The leadership then. As Franklin Roosevelt wrote to Colonel House on Nov. 21, 1933:
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Meanwhile, people continue to slaughter one another and the government seems powerless:
The interior minister has been forced by an irate Congress party leadership to resign, owning responsibility for the massive failure to prevent the fidayeen from storming India's financial capital with such impunity.
Curious how exactly the same situation existed at all the other atrocity points, especially in Russia, which is a controlled space. Curious how so much incompetence has reared its ugly head worldwide just in the last few years, how the global collapse has accompanied the advent of terror and the re-opening of old war zones.
Curious how it blows up in one region, whilst the others remain relatively stable, then, when that region sees "peacekeepers" going in to thrash out a deal, the focus moves to another region - but no two at the same time.
It is a deep concern given recent events that if this powderkeg goes up then the consequences don't bear thinking about
ReplyDelete