Biases of the American Press

I dont fully disagree with the American vierw. I am Pakistani and have lived all my life except for five years in Pakistan. i have studied there and everytime i visit Pakistan I find it to be in a social, moral and economic decline. Please tell me one good that is there in Pakistan? One thing is a bit too difficult as there isnt any. We can romance with our country as that is all we have done in the last 50 years. We have lost track. We are intolerant people who consider themselves to be the most religious in the world as their women dont wear jeans. We are corrupt to the core and on all sides on a collapse of all values.

I fully agree with the point of view that the Americans have of us. we are to be blamed of it. We have to start writing about all the evil not try to defend it.

Chowk Staff,

How come my post to ``harimau`` wasn`t put up?

I didn`t even use any swear words.

You put his crap about Kashmiris up, but not my reply to him?

Pretty sad.

To the halal butcher # 84

``Like communism and stalinism, the civilised world must rid itself of this inhuman, unnatural religion; along with its bigoted followers if necessary``

Nice for you to sum up the evil of Islam so succinctly and what we need to do to get rid of it. Starting with you. I volunteer to make a start on you. Get your cleaver ready.

How many Halal Muslim on Muslim murders took place last week butcher boy???

Sorry for the divergence

An unknown individual has struck in the name of freespeech. The Siqafat Organization Rutgers with which I was affiliated sometime ago was being run by people who believe in Censorship. Their message board apparently has been hacked, and proclaimed in the name of freespeech.

http://www.freedomofspeech.cjb.net

Pakistan Zindabad

Re: sigalph235 #: 85

I agree with your hypothesis that Reagan`s firmness pushed the Soviet state/communism to collapse, but the real reasons were economical and not political/military. The Soviets could not keep pace with the monies devoted by the United States on armaments. The Soviet Union collasped economically before it went belly up politically.

Yes, George W. Bush is pushing an American point of view and is only acting on those issues, which directly affect United States interest. I disagree with you that it is pushing for global freedoms across the board. In a realpolitik sense, United States` unilateralism may make a good congressional sound byte, but it makes for bad policy.

United States` foreign policy, since the end of the Second World War, in Europe has always revolved around the principle of consensus. It was the common European consensus that the Soviet Union was a threat to western Europe, a view advocated by Washington, that pushed for the creation of NATO and the European Coal And Steel Community - the parent organization of the European Union.

I will agree with you that Reagan was tough on the Soviet Union, but if you look at the deployment of the Pershing II missiles in western Europe, Reagan deployed those missiles after getting an ``ok`` from western Europe. Reagan`s ultimatum for the Soviets to get out of Afghanistan was facilated by Pakistan`s cooperation in the insurgency against the Soviets in Afghanistan. As to Nicargua, that was a complete failure, because depite all Reagan`s bluster, the Sandistas remined in power inspite of the United States` proxy war against them from bases in Hondurus.

In a bi-polar world of the cold war, United States-Soviet Union conflict was mirrored by their respective sphere of influences (east and west Europe). After the end of the cold war in November 1989 and the unification of the two Germanies in 1991, the bi-polar international diplomacy, which had dominated the world politics since 1945, was replaced by a multi-polar world. There are too many spheres of influence in the international relations at the present time.

The problem, for the United States, is that it wants to be a uni-polar power in a multi-polar world.

The United States, under Clinton, sought to sustain its influence via an economic diplomacy to take advantage of the process of international market globalization. That policy was also predicated on the building consensus. The Bush administration, on the other hand, is pushing United States into unilateralism.

I have nothing against that policy.

The United States is welcome to this policy, but it should be prepared for adverse reactions against it and should not think that world will gladly tolerate its selfish interests unconditionally and eternally. My friend, the United States cannot have its cake and eat it too!

To paraphrase Karl von Clusewitz, economics is the continuation of national security by other means in the present international context. Military might is proportional to a nation`s economic strenght and a nation`s political influence is the mixture of both its economics and military might.

China has learned this lesson and the United States seems to be forgetting its own historic experience in this regard.

My reference to Bush`s neo-cold war policies was to suggest that the Bush administration needs to follow the advice of Teddy Roosevelt- it should talk softly and carry a big stick, but sadly all it is doing is carrying a big stick!

How long can it sustain its confrontational policies?

Already there are misgivings in the board rooms of American business firms as to how this Sino-American EP- 3 Aires crisis will impact on American business interests in China? The United States did not have billions invested in the former Soviet Union, but it does in China! Is the United States willing to foresake its billions in China over some nostalgic cold war memory out of a John Wayne movie?

In your heart, do you really think that American business firms are willing to see their monies disappear so that Bush`s approval ratings go up in a CNN poll?

My friend, I supported Reagan and his policies and I supported Bush`s father`s stand against Iraq and I support the sanctions against that country (which I think need to be reconsidered).

Being a republican, I believe in the pledge of alligence. Still, I will not blindly follow a leader just because he/she happens to be a republican, because I feel that one needs to change with the times.

If the republicans do not change with the times and continue to stick with their policies of twenty years ago, they seriously risk stagnating politically and undermining their own chances in 2004.

I hope that you will take my advice and my advice to you my friend is not to get your panties in a knot and to think rationally and calmly on issues, which affect United States and try to avoid political knee jerk responses. :)

Ciao!

Interesting article about India in Pakistani press :

http://www.newsline.com.pk/html/impressions.html

Sincerely,

re feorzk #69

My friend, the problem with your and Rockefeller`s brand of Republican foreign policy was that it was without principle and without power. Your liberal Republican foreign policy was based on nonsense do-gooderism that got America into the Cold War in the first place. You guys like Hatfield and Dan Coats were apologetic when Reagan asked the Commie s.o.b.s to get the h * * * out of Afghanistan, Poland and Nicaragua. You guys don`t believe it but the USSR or the Berlin Wall didn`t crumble from within. The Reagan Revolution brought them down. China and Russia today will have to be negotiated with principle not flaccidity. And if the pinlo French and the neo-Nazi Germans want to criticise the US, well what`s new? The only concern W ought to have is the national interest of the USA and the promotion of global freedom.

Feroz, I hate to break it to you, but the liberal Republicans lost in 1976 and the nazi Republicans in 1996; either you are an internationalist pro-business Republican or something from a different time.

RE: Haramiu # 70

[``The Kashmiris constitute less than 1% of India`s population and will be squelched like cockroaches.``]

Thats what your intolerant and bigoted religion teaches you... that humans are inherently unequal... made from brahma`s head, feet or arse... can be as high as the brahmins or can be sub-human cockroaches like muslims and shudras.

Like communism and stalinism, the civilised world must rid itself of this inhuman, unnatural religion; along with its bigoted followers if necessary.

Re: arjun_m # 73

Just a point of clarification.

My reference to Bush`s revised cold war policies was meant in the sense that it seeks confrontation instead of consensus in forging international policies.

United States does not have to support Pakistan like it did during the cold war, because India has more strategic importance for it than Pakistan - in terms of trade.

I am against United States` support of Pakistan, because Pakistanis will blindly implement Washington`s bidding and when United States` interests change, Pakistanis will complain of being ignored by the United States. United States` alliance is the worst thing, which can happen to Pakistan and in my opinion, Pakistan will be far less worse off it tries to exist without United States` patronage.

An alliance with the United States is rational decision if that decision is taken within a realistic assesment of the prevailing geo-political situation. Pakistan has a very childish concept of foreign policy. It believes in giving absolute loyality and it accepts absolute loyality in return and that is a very flawed premise upon, which to decide foreign policy.

Therein lies the rub. Pakistan needs to come up with a rational foreign policy based on pragmatic realizations of its security considerations and not on emotionalism.

Pakistan is a very emotional nation prone knee jerk acts of myopia cursed with a unwillingness to admit to its past mistakes.

Hence, Pakistan continues to make make wrong decisions, because it never learns from its mistakes and simply compounds the problem endlessly.

Ciao!

Ref binifer #: 78

[``The Kashmiris constitute less than 1% of India`s population and will be squelched like cockroaches.``

Are you for real?]

Yes, sweetheart, I am for real. I post in plain English home truths that Pakistanis, fervent believers in Islam, their fellow-travellers and hand-wringing Hindu apologists don`t like to hear.

[``May the flies of a thousand camels reside in your armpits``]

Would those flies have to be of Arab or Chinese origin or would sand flies of the Thar desert be acceptable to true-blue Pakistanis?

Ferozk#69

``India will have to do a clever diplomatic balancing act and given the ``wild card`` of Pakistan, India cannot afford to let Pakistan emerge as a Chinese protége in a regional sense. Iran is tilting towards Russia (in defense related matters and in gaining nuclear technology from Russia) and if India is not careful, it will be identified as a nation ``running with the foxes while hunting with the hounds``.

``

Actually the situation is extremely complicated from Indian point of view. India does not want to go in the bad books of Russia as it is its main supplier of defence equipments. At the same time India, at this juncture can not afford to rile up Chinese. If Russia and China team up together to prevent US from making inroads into Asia, India would be in an unenviable situation. Given its economic and geopolitical interests, it would be inviting a big trouble if it antagonises Russia-China combine. China can cause India a lot of harm if they apply themselves to it, and in absence of Russia to fall back on in Asia, it would be a disaster inspite of American support. So India should keep itself away from this power game and at least not become a stooge of USA. India should strive to maximise her economic interests and lay low till it becomes an economic power to match Chinese(ie double its GDP from $480bn to a trillion(Chinese) ). But it requires some ingenuity to prosper without siding any party overtly. The useless rhetoric of non alignment will not work. India has everything to loose and little to gain in the kind of situation you hypothesize.

Harimau # 70

``The Kashmiris constitute less than 1% of India`s population and will be squelched like cockroaches.``

Are you for real?

``May the flies of a thousand camels reside in your armpits``

C. Klinger

Dost-mittar #55 and Neptune #65

[I also discovered that Dhaka is named after a Hindu goddess, Dhakeshwri, to which an ancient temple is dedicated in Dhaka. But what I found even more interesting was that none of my muslim friends in Dhaka (of which I made many during my stay) knew about this origin of their city`s name.]

Well, no. It is actually the other way round. The name Dhakeshwari (literally - goddess of Dhaka) is derived from Dhaka



The name Dhaka is apprently derived from ``Dhaak`` trees which may have been in abundance at that time. There are many such names around:

eg.

Plassy: Palash

Champaran:Champa Aranya or Forest of Champa trees

Bakait

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts