Struggle for Corrupt Person

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, photo from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iftikhar_Muhammad_Chaudhry

A friend of mine, who affiliates with Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) once said to me that former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was a corrupt person. My reply to him through mobile sms was as follows:

You message some time ago raised several questions in my mind. I am listing my questions and points as follows.

• At the end of the message, you said that our (former) Chief Justice is very corrupt person. 
• I remember one such claim was made by former President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf. 
• Lets consider Chief Justice is corrupt, then PPP used to struggle for restoring a corrupt Chief Justice in 2007-2008. 
• Barrister Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent leader of PPP, was the leading role in the movement for restoring a corrupt Chief Justice.
• Shaheed e Jamhuriat, Benazir Bhutto said to put a Pakistani flag on his house. Had she no moral boldness and confidence to talk against a corrupt person?

Friends at Gunpoint and Fair Game

Friends at Gunpoint and Fair Game

Americans are strange. They make friends at gun point and then expect a fair game. How can Americans expect Pakistanis to be their true friends when the only options for Pakistanis are to either comply or going to stone-age.

Photo modified after obtained from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/05/22/restaurant-with-no-weapons-no-concealed-firearms-sign-robbed-at-gunpoint/

Pakistan agreed to comply with Americans and agreed to provide logistics, airspace, airbases, and other supports. Pakistanis demanded expenses in providing the supports as it was difficult to bear all the load on its own. Strangely, Americans called the expenses paid to Pakistan as aid.
Americans provided aid in past but the channels were not clear and the American aid money ended in American and European banks by corrupt administrators. And this is the case with almost all developing countries.
Americans were going to leave Afghanistan behind with all its problems and run away, like in all Americans wars after WWII. Pakistan was the country supporting several million Afghans for several decades and Pakistan is the country to deal with the future Afghanistan. Americans would run away and leave everything to Pakistan. Pakistan has to keep relations with all parties in Afghanistan intact in order to deal with them properly in future, when America is gone from Afghanistan.
Americans are asking Pakistan to deal with Afghans as Americans want, while Americans are not going to be here for long. They wanted Pakistan to stop negotiations with militants and blaming it for double game, while Americans were later trying to bring Taliban to negotiations table themselves in Qatar. Americans were asking Pakistan to forget about the past history and deal with Afghans as short-sighted Americans want.
Americans were in Afghanistan to finish Taliban and they failed. You can't completely destroy by weapons and wars a big organization motivated by ideology and possessing large support of local population. Americans were failed and they lost trillion dollars war. They had to blame someone for their failures. And they found Pakistan an easier scapegoat. That is why Pakistan was blamed as playing double game and is responsible for failed for American war in Afghanistan.

Contradicting own Ideologies

Separation between church and state: this means keeping religion as a private matter of a person and not involve the state in religious matter, and not letting religion involved in state matters.
USA constitution is very clear about this.
There are several measures to ensure this.
But when we look at the Israel and USA policies to each other, we see a stark contradiction in the policy of keeping state and religion separate.
The very existence of Israel is based on a combination of religion and racism.
Israeli policies to its neighbors and other minorities have a major impact from Judaism. 
The unconditional support of Israel by USA is solely based on care for religion and race.

But one can say that the above contradiction is due to the problematic politics in USA.
This explanation raises another question:
USA is a preacher of democracy and good governance and transparency.
When its own politics leads it against its own ideology, then how credible is the USA own democracy.
If its own democracy is not so good, then why preach to others and even trying to export the democratic system to other countries, like into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Losing Mojo in a Bad Way

Almost all USA allies joined China in development of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), despite intensive diplomatic pressure from USA. This event hints to some points:

• USA declares China as a rival and enemy openly.
• USA most allies don't like dictation from USA on most issues, particularly China issue.
• China is winning the game of attracting USA allies despite US struggle against it.
• When UK joined the AIIB, it was a very strange event, because it never took any major step or agreement without USA permission since the WWII.
• China apparently doesn't want to confront USA on any major issues, but USA wants and trying to find ways to engage China.
• China states that the AIIB is for development of infrastructure in developing countries, in which task the major USA led organizations like IMF, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank have failed.
• Unintentionally, USA also delivered a message to the developing world that it is not interested in development in other countries if it is not in support of direct US financial interests.
• The above point will damage the soft power of USA in all over the world.

To improve the soft power, USA needs to reverse the side-effects of its behavior regarding the Chinese AIIB. For this,

• USA can endorse the AIIB openly.
• USA can also provide some funding to AIIB, and some guidance and technical help for its proper operations.
• It can find out some scapegoats in its government and blame them on destroying the good image of USA in front of the whole world.

Natural Alliances

Natural and Perfect Alliance based on Genocide of Local Population

In thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Europeans got into Americas and Australia.
They performed a perfect genocide of the local population.
The genocide was so perfect that within a two to three centuries, the indigenous people became a very weak minority.

Fast forward to current age:
Immediately after second world war, extremist and racist Jew (not all Jews) all around the world came together in Palestine in a very systematic way.
With the help of European powers, they established the state of Israel.
They tried to perform genocide of the local population, but geology and geopolitics didn't allow it.
The remaining local population escaped from the genocide to the neighboring countries.
After one decade of Israel creation, the European powers backed off a little.
USA from North America, which is the region of a perfect genocide, became an unconditional ally of the state of Israel.
USA is an unconditional ally of Israel, but Israel is not an unconditional ally of USA. Isn't it strange?
Now a days, in USA, the white supremacists, mostly Republicans, are the main supporters of Israel. One can say that the failed genocide of the local population by Israeli Jews attracts sympathy from the white supremacists of USA whose forefathers had performed a perfect genocide. And this makes USA and Israel natural and perfect allies.

Are Western Courts Free

Rule of Law in Civilized and Democratic USA and UK and Poor Pakistan

 
The Point: Most of the countries in the world have leaders and rulers who wrongfully exploit the power bestowed upon them. They violate the human rights of their own people and put their country in harm's way. In a few of these countries, the countrymen start a movement and try to remove the bad rulers. After succeeding in removal of the bad rulers, in a fewer cases, the judiciary system starts a trial of the past rulers for their bad behavior. If this happens in a country, then we can say that the judiciary and rule of law has some good prospects in that country.

More Info Here

One Example: Pakistan is a developing country with a long history of  dictatorship and weaker democratic governments. Pervez Musharraf removed elected Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef in 1999 from government and enforced a state of emergency. During his one decade of rule, he took several controversial decisions which were perceived to be against the interests of Pakistan and its people. He was then toppled down after a long peaceful struggle of Pakistani people. Now, Government of Pakistan and Judiciary are trying to charge him for treason and violation of constitution and the rights of Pakistani people.
Remember, Pakistan is not an advanced democracy and it is blamed to have a very weak rule of law.
Moral: Does Pakistan has a good future in rule of law and democracy?


A Double Not Example: In the start of 21st century, President of USA and Prime Minister of UK took several controversial decisions and deceived their own people and the whole world. They started wars in other countries based on lies which results in deaths of nearly one million people and thousands of their own soldiers. They both violated their countrymen constitutional rights and tainted the concept of their countries as democratic and civilized nations.
There is a little problem: Those two were not dictators. They were elected by their countrymen. So, one can say that they violated the trust of their voters.
Long after their removal from power, there is no significant criticism about their actions and the resultant bad consequences. There is no case in their courts against their lawless behavior and their deceptive actions. The American and British people are not even planing to drag those two elected-tyrants into courts and charge them for murder of about one million people.
Questions: Does the judiciary of USA and UK handle such cases?


The Irony: 
The Irony is that the Britain and USA are considered of the most civilized and lawful countries in the world. They are the leaders of civilized world and are trying to export their democracy and social advancement and rule of law to other countries all over the world.

Why does Iranian People not Matter to USA

USA had been helping its puppet Shah of Iran for decades as a tyrant in suppressing Iranian people while forwarding American interests. Iranian people were hating Shah of Iran and also USA for the atrocities. This is no secret.
After Iranian revolution, there was a harsh response which resulted in the American Embassy Crisis. Americans loath Iranians for the Embassy Crisis but they never acknowledge their own mistake of supporting a tyrant Shah of Iran against Iranian peoples wishes, rights, and interests.
I was talking with someone more familiar with American politics and foreign policy. He said that when USA was supporting Shah of Iran, it was because of American interests. In that matter, Iranian people didn't matter at all. Iranian people didn't matter to USA when it was supporting Shah of Iran. Because American financial and strategic interests were involved.
Iranian people didn't matter to Americans. Human rights of Iranian people didn't matter to Americans because American interests were involved. 
Even today, Americans don't care about Iranian people. They are forwarding their own agenda. In American capitalism and democracy, non-American people don't matter at all.

If USA government was a dictatorship or kingship, then it was an act and a policy of a few individuals. But USA was and still is a democracy. USA is a long-time and civilized democracy with one of the world's best constitutions and several democratic institutions. It has a free media for a long time.
Isn't this strange for a democracy like USA to violate human rights of another country for several decades?
Isn't it strange for a land-of-free to enslave people of other countries through dictators and tyrants? 
Isn't it strange for a civilized country to help a tyrant and dictator to suppress his countrymen for decades?
Isn't even more strange for a democratic country to not acknowledge its undemocratic and inhuman behavior against another country people even after several decades?

What a strange nation....

Pre and Post Iranian Revolution Perceptions

Before Iranian Revolution of late 1970s, Shah of Iran had complete authority over almost every aspect of Iranian government. He had suppressed the Iranian people in almost every aspect.
But USA and Iran were great allies. USA was major supporter of Shah of Iran, and rarely objected about his any undemocratic acts of suppression of Iranian people.
Shah of Iran had given several kinds of facilities to Americans to do whatever they wanted to do in Iran. In Shahs Iran, there were least number of problems for Americans, but Iranian people were facing all kinds of problems.
The Shah of Iran had subjected Iranian people through secret and securities agencies and Americans where happy with that. Americans where very dear friends of Shah.
In short, Americans were best and dearest friends of Shah of Iran, while the same Shah was the worst enemy in the eyes of Iranian people.
After revolution, the Iranian hostage crisis occurred. It was a very complicated and long event. This event made Americans very surprised and angry. Their anger was natural but their surprise and claiming a moral higher ground was strange.
As mentioned at the start about the dirty romance of Americans with Shah of Iran, similar event should have been expected by Americans. What Iranian people viewed of the American embassy was not of as a source of diplomacy but a gateway of strength of Shah of Iran and the gateway of troubles of Iranian people, and the home of Shahs dearest friends. And Iranian people hated Shah a lot for his cruelty, while Americans loved him just for his money and power. Naturally, Iranian people considered Americans has a major source of their suffering.
I am making a simpler assumption here: A democratic government is from the people, and its any acts put strong responsibility on the people.
So, when American government was a dearest friend of Shah of Iran in suppressing Iranian people in very cruel manner, then American people were also very  responsible for the suffering of Iranian people by hands of Shah.
After the crisis, American people didn't thought about their past behavior and romance with the Iranian Shah. They didn't transcend about their active support of undemocratic behavior of Shah of Iran. American people and American intellectuals and American media just blamed Iranians for everything and declared them their enemies.
If American people and intellectuals had thought about their past mistakes,and acknowledged them, then the intensity of the enmity with Iran would have been very low. Both parties might have recognized their own mistakes and very soon people of both countries might have been in good relations.
But Americans didn't do this. They didn't thought about their mistakes and didn't acknowledge their wrong behavior in dealing with Iranians from the beginning.They acted like psychos with no guilt and dead conscience.
We can say that Iranians were uneducated, religious extremists, so we can't expect the thinking from them.
But Americans were not like Iranians. They were educated and intellectuals and had free media and democratic government. Why didn't they think about and acknowledge their mistakes and try to compensate for them, while improving the situation with the Iranians?
This is a big why?

Several reasons and factors can be  presented. I have the following ones:

• There is a very powerful lobby of weapon manufacturers in American government. Declaring Iran as an enemy would brighten their prospects.
• They knew that Iranians were Shia and there were historical religious disputes with Arabs.So, they needed an enemy in the middle of Arabs to sell them weapons, a lot of weapons.
• Israeli Jews have a huge influence in American politics and policy making. They felt threatened by Iranians and they wanted Americans to contain it.
• The free median in American is not as free as it seems. When it comes to government plus money plus powerful lobbies of weapons manufacturers and Israeli Jews, they just go with in any direction they are directed.
• Some very few American intellectuals tried to talk about it, but median blocked them out, so no one got a clue of the matter at all.

Stupidity of Indians Regarding China

How Stupid are Indians Declaring Chinese as Their Enemies

If you look at the Indian media news regarding China, you will see that China is India's biggest enemy.
On the other hand, if you look at the Chinese media news regarding India, you will see that India is a potential trade partner of the future.
Why are Indians so obsessed with enmity with Chinese? While Chinese have displayed several gestures of friendship and partnership with Indians. Last time, Chinese president visited India on his first foreign tour and signed several trade and industrial agreements with Indians.
One major reason is Indian and Western media. They talk to Indians that they are the next Asian superpower and that they are better than Chinese. Therefore, Indians should prepare their military for Chinese. Obviously, this means, completely ignoring domestic problems of the poor Indians whether it is poverty, economy, education, health, energy, infrastructure, social unrest in several regions, economic inequality, corruption, etc.
Indians apparently don't want see how Chinese handled their most problems. Chinese first focused on economy and poverty reduction with education and health, then they recently developed their infrastructure, and are now they are focusing on environment, corruption, and economic inequality. In the mean time, Chinese are slowly introducing social and governmental reforms to make people more free.
One other fascinating behavior of Chinese: They do trade with everyone, even their historical enemies, like Japan and Taiwan. Chinese say to them: We have some problems and issues which will not be solved very soon. By the way, do you want to trade? We can provide you this and this kind of economic services and you provide us that and that economic services. This will benefit people on both sides.
Now, compare that to Western nations: They will bomb everyone which is weak and disagree with them. If it is powerful, then they will refuse to establish any kind of relationships, and will continuously conspire to destabilize the enemies. Off course, this is bad for the people of the target enemy nation, but who cares.
Lets hope Indians see the opportunities in links with Chinese and risks in links with Western world which once looted Asians.

West and China and Free Market

A question is asked: Why US and the West have kept pouring money and high technologies in into China to boost it to become the world 2nd largest economy and military although USSR collapsed in 1989? The question is asked by SONTRAN on The Economist.

First opinion on the above question is:
Why not pour money into the China? Has China clearly threaten West or declare it its enemy?

Next I will try to answer the question indirectly in the following discussion.
In a democratic capitalist nation, the government has very little control over the financial decisions of individuals and private organizations, the decisions involving foreign countries, organizations, and individuals. If a private organization is involved in a critical military contract with government, then government can influence its economic decisions involving foreign countries and organizations. But in other non-critical industries and contracts, the organizations are free in their decisions.

Initially, Western nations tried to improve relations with China probably to counter USSR, as implied by the question asked. The start of improving relations was in government control because it involved a lot of diplomacy. But when the Western governments agreed on trade with China, then private companies and organizations started to do most of the business.

Contrary to governments, private companies and organizations are concerned mainly with their reduced costs and expenses and increased profit margin. They rarely think about the social and long term economic impacts of their financial decisions. Governments are there to control the freedom of the private organizations through regulations when the impacts of private organizations decisions are not good for the country, society or other public goods. But, in case of USA, the private organizations have powerful lobbies in government that prevent the government from imposing any regulations that can affect the profit of private organizations.
And this is the reason, the USA and Western countries are pouring money and high technologies into China.
One side point is: The money and high technologies are poured in China not by USA and Western governments, but private organizations in those countries.The government then can't object because the trade with China also brings costs savings, more taxes, and environmental improvements as the dirty industries are shifted to China.

One can also say that the reason is the the ideologies of capitalism (which involves free movement of goods and services and capital) and democracy (in which governments can't force individuals and private organizations without proper reasons). But when we look at the past and current active policies of Western nations and USA, we can see that they don't care at all about ideology and morality when money is involved.

At the end, we can say that in the presence of free market and trade and monetary profit, geopolitics and ideologies become irrelevant.

Taking Risks in Others Wars

 Blaming American Soldiers and Officers for Avoiding Risks

Thomas E. Ricks

Thomas E. Ricks from foreignpolicy.com writes in this article that American soldiers and officers were not willing to take risk in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that is the reason Americans lost the wars.
Thomas E. Ricks is probably from rich white elite class with no child in military.

Almost everybody will take a risk if own homeland is attacked. That is why Iraqis and Afghans didn't let the USA succeed in the war, because they were taking a lot of risks, because America had attacked their countries.

And no body will take risks in wars whose main beneficiaries are blood-sucking elites. When Americans attacked and captured Iraq and Afghanistan, it was not that Iraqis and Afghans had attacked USA. No. Americans were talking about attacking them for several years and at last they captured and invented some excuses to carry out the long wished attacks. Americans were very eager to test their new weapon systems and powerful army.

But, we can all see now that the attacks didn't gained for Americans what they wished. Because the motive of the attacks were false. They American solders and officers were deceived by American politicians, journalists, intellectuals and elites. American soldiers and officers were pushed into two wars with no clear moral justifications and objectives. And clear moral justifications and objectives makes everybody to take huge risks.

Americans spent hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. They used very little on destroyed infrastructure construction and public welfare of the war struck people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the very little resources USA used on the people of subjected countries, it was consumed in corruption while Americans were watching.

Iraqi and Afghan people knew that Americans were there for destruction only and for no good reason and intentions. American soldiers and officers also knew this. So, this guilt was enough for the soldiers and officers to avoid taking risks, because they are also human and they also have families.

Should America be Trusted

Should the World Trust USA

America conducts drone strikes through its secret intelligence agencies in several countries killing score of innocent people along with the extra-judicial killing of the ones they want. America don't care what UNO and the world says about this.
Americans tried to export democracy to Iraq and Afhganistan and they are now in worst civil war.
Americans spy on all the world, even its closest allies, and don't intend to stop this.
They steel business secrets from companies in their friendly nations in Europe to advance their own industry and blame others repeatedly for doing the same act.
Americans support religious extremists in Saudi-e-Arab because of money while preaching secularism and liberalism and democracy to the world.
Americans support Israel unconditionally based on race and religion and money and talk to the world about secularism and multiculturalism and civilization only to attract brain-drainage.
Americans support every dictator who suppresses his people and provide financial incentives to Americans. Americans close its eyes on any human-rights violation if money is involved.
Americans produce the biggest per-capita green-house gases and pollution in the world, and their politicians claim that the global warming is a hoax.
Americans have the most advanced nuclear weapon program in the world, and their nuclear weapons annual budget is not reducing with time. They have dedicated their biggest super computers to nuclear weapons program. In the mean time, they impose their policies on any country they want. Then at the end, they tell the other countries that nuclear weapons are bad and no country should try to get them. And if they try, America will bomb them.
USA is a bully. It will tell you to be either his ally in a specific task or get ready to be bombed to the stone age.
USA has its hundreds of thousands of military personal in several countries around the world, to secure its interests. But it has minimum forces as part of UN Peacekeeping  force.

American people are good people but they are brainwashed and kept in dark. They claim to not trust Iran with nuclear technology while it is saying to be not interested in nuclear weapons. It needs nuclear technology for energy production to reduce pollution due to oil burning for electricity. But Americans are ready to bomb them if they don't give up.

Now, a few questions should be asked from Americans and the world:

• Can America be trusted?
• Should the world trust USA?
• Is world safe from USA?

Media Brainwashing and Polls

Media Brainwashing and Polls in American Population

Almost all America media outlets repeatedly tell Americans that Iran is bad, Iran is deceiving, Iran is untrustworthy, Iran is terror-sponsor, Iran is dangerous, Iran is this and Iran is that. American people hear this from so-called scholars and experts who take huge sum from the media to tell the people that Iran is bad. By the way, is Iran really bad? Who knows and who cares?
At the end, American media conduct polls: Do you trust Iran?
Obviously, answer will be No.
By the way, in the poll, those people are asked who will not be able to locate Iran in the world map. 
There is only one image of Iran in Americans mind, and that is what the media tells them. So, they don't trust Iran.
Isn't this brainwashing? 

China American Enemy

Is China American Enemy?

I have been asking myself this question for a long time. Most of Americans say that China is their enemy. But I don't see any major steps from Chinese which confirms the claim. On the contrary, Chinese are doing a lot of trade with USA and they have invested a lot in USA. Calling USA enemy or acting on it will be very bad for the Chinese. 
Anyway, why do Americans consider Chinese as their enemy?
There can be several reasons. I have sorted out a few as follows:

• Americans feel that they can no longer stare down China which they consider dangerous.
• China is building trade relationship with most of the countries all over the world, which decreases their dependence on America and free them from American blackmailing.
• China is economically growing rapidly and it is changing its social and government system slowly to accommodate the growth.On the other hand, USA is economically going down. This is making Americans very jealous.
• China is improving relations with all of its neighbors, including India. This fears American to lose their major weapons market.
• Americans need someone to chide to prove their moral and cultural superiority. Before Muslims, it was USSR, and after Muslims it will be China. 
• China grew and developed despite their non-liberal government, which is against American thinking. This is making them very angry.
• Weapon industries in USA has a big power and they control American politicians, media, and policies. Declaring China as an enemy will provide long term weapon contracts.