Saturday, February 26, 2011

JP Vacant Jobs in Middle East

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Re: Why Democracy?

Democracy is often referred to as " tyranny of the majority"
-----------------------------

Thats why the United States isn't one

On Feb 26, 9:31 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Why Democracy?by John TynerJohnnyedgeOver the last month or so, people have been throwing off, or trying to throw off, the shackles of their oppressive governments. It started inTunisia, spread toEgypt, thenYemen,Bahrain, and nowLibya. In every instance, though, the protestors have been calling fordemocracy. I suppose that's understandable; the grass on democracy's side of the fence probably looks and probably is a lot greener than that on the dictatorial side. I'm probably underselling democracy with that statement. After all, democracy is often held out as the gold standard for (good) government. Winston Churchillendorsedit, saying, "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others." Despite the actual wording, when reading or hearing Churchill's statement, people often "hear" that democracy is the best form of government. In reality, we can rightly infer from the statement that all forms of government are terrible. In Churchill's opinion, democracy is just the least terrible.
> Democracy is often referred to as "tyranny of the majority" andLysander Spoonerexplained, very eloquently, why:[O]ther men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.Democracy is a very seductive mistress because it promises the people control of the government. It gives the illusion of self-governance and individual rights. It implies that no injustice can be done so long as the "will of the people" is done. It provides nothing of the sort, though. As explained, when the people vote, a majority may and does impose its will upon the minority. "Will of the people" is rightly replaced with "will of the majority." This can be seen most prominently in the struggle in the U.S. for gay rights, and more specifically, gay marriage. In California, in 2008, 52% of the populationdenied gay peoplethe right to marry.Proposition 19last year, also in California, is another example where barely more than half of the population (53.5%) used their majority position to deny the use of marijuana – the actual use of which affects no one other than the user – to the rest.
> There is also the problem that democracy doesn't scale. The founders knew this when they set up the U.S. House of Representatives. That is, it is not practical to hold a vote among the entire population for every matter to come before the U.S. federal government, so instead the population elects representatives to act in their stead. These representatives then practice democracy amongst themselves. This is even worse, though. Each representative currently represents just under 700,000 people. How can one person adequatelyrepresent the diverse viewsof almost three quarters of a million people?Choosing between two candidates is analogous [to] going to Walmart and being presented with two shopping carts already filled with items. Everyone will leave the store with the same cart of goods. Each cart contains products that a person may want and products that one wouldn't choose to have, but the voter is not able to take anything out of either cart.Not only that, but:[E]ven though the voters are promised a particular set of goods in the shopping cart that won the election, that doesn't mean that the voters will receive that set of goods. The candidate could promise to deliver a specific set of policies, but after the election, the office holder is free to deliver a different set of policies to the voters, either because the candidate changed his position on some issues or because he was being deceitful during the campaign in order to gain political support.The same can be said at other levels of government, even down to the city level, where a handful of elected officials make decisions on behalf of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. So, the question should not be "why democracy," but "why government." At the federal level, we have things likeTSAbody scanners,highway checkpoints,the PATRIOT Act,warrantlesswiretaps,extra-judicial assassinations, andindefinite detentions. At the state level, we have the aforementioned denial of gay rights and marijuana use,prohibitivegun laws, andsmoking bans. At the city level, we've gotHappy Meal "bans"andwatering limitsandlandscaping restrictions. And at all levels, we havetaxesandpolice. You may be inclined to agree with some or all of these items, but that's not the point. The point is that some person or group who you may or may not have voted for or even heard of is, in one way or another controlling you. So, perhaps the question should really be, "why do peoplechoose to be ruled."
> Whether they know it or not, most people are Hobbesians, by which I mean that they believe or are fearful that the natural state of humanity is "war of all against all." They may very well be right, and in order to protect themselves from this "war," people institute governments andcede the use of force to said government, presumably to prevent the use of force amongst the people themselves. Locke argued that peopledo not even have the abilityto cede this power in the first place, but nevertheless, ceding this power to a government presents a clear contradiction. If all people by their very nature would war with all others, why would anyone cede to anyone else the legal use of violence? James Madison touched on this idea inThe Federalist, No. 51when he said that if men were angels, there would be no need for government. He argued further that because men are not angels, pitting them against each other within government was the best that we could do. Men, competing with each other, from different branches of government, would restrain each other.
> But whatkind of personruns for public office? Madison failed to foresee that even the so-called "separation of powers" could not restrain men forever. Entry into politics does not require any particular skill or morality. It simply requires some combination of money, connections, personality, and a desire to rule others, particularly the last one. In fact, that last reason is probably the main reason that anyone runs for office. The idea that the world would be a better place if <insert your name here> was in charge is probably not foreign to anyone. To succeed in government, however, involves backroom deals and "compromises" ensuring that only the least moral and most willing to deal away their principles will rise to the top. Thus, government will ultimately be populated with the worst people in society, and it is only a matter of time before they decide to work together to turn their legal authority to use force on the people themselves. It turns out that government is really a sort ofFaustianbargain. Government is instituted to protect people from those in society who would do harm, but how much worse is it when those who would do harm wield the power of the state?
> The people of the revolting Middle Eastern and African nations now have a rare opportunity to truly be free. I fear, though, that like many before them, they will make the mistake of putting in place a government that will ultimately betray them and once again oppress them. If they are lucky, it will be to a lesser degree.
> Reprinted with permission fromJohnnyedge.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Newt Gingrich Threatens Obama With Impeachment Over Defense of Marriage Act

Exactly. Newt can't impeach a ham sandwich

On Feb 25, 9:30 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Since Newt is not a congressman now, how is this threat anything at all
> meaningful. There are a whole lot more useful charges to make against
> Zero than this one.
>
> On 02/25/2011 08:57 PM, Travis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/>
>
> > Newt Gingrich Threatens Obama With Impeachment Over Defense of
> > Marriage Act
> > <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/newt-gingrich-threatens...>
>
> > *doctorbulldog
> > <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/>* | 25
> > February, 2011 at 4:19 pm | Categories: politics
> > <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/?category_name=politics> | URL:
> >http://wp.me/p1NPg-6UF
>
> > /*Hey, Newt, while I admire the effort on your part to defend
> > traditional marriage, there are over 50 truly impeachable offenses
> > that have been committed by Obama [CLICK HERE
> > <http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26650>] and yet,
> > this is the dark horse you've chosen to place your bet on? Sounds a
> > little odd to me that you would go after the least prosecutable of
> > these offenses---unless, that is, you aren't really serious about
> > impeaching him:*/
>
> > *Newt Gingrich: Obama Could Be Impeached Over Gay Marriage Reversal*
> > /By Paul Bedard - February 25, 2011 - USNews
> > <http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/02/25/newt-...>/
>
> > Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who plans within two weeks to
> > announce if he will run for president, said today that if President
> > Obama doesn't change his mind and order his Justice Department to
> > enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans in Congress should
> > strike back and even consider impeachment proceedings.
>
> > "I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution
> > instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own
> > constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that
> > they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take
> > other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,"
> > said Gingrich. "His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to
> > start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very
> > dangerous precedent."
>
> > He didn't call for immediate impeachment hearings, but didn't rule
> > them out if Obama balks at any congressional demands to enforce the law.
>
> > [...]
>
> > Gingrich's call for quick GOP reaction to the Justice Department's
> > decision to stop enforcing the marriage act was seen as a bid for the
> > conservative and Tea Party vote, a base he would rely on if he decides
> > to get into the presidential race.
>
> > [...]
>
> > Gingrich noted that Obama supported the law during the campaign. "He
> > is breaking his word to the American people," Gingrich said. Also, he
> > added, "He swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he
> > would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United
> > States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now
> > have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten
> > everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to
> > ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act," Gingrich said.
>
> > Add a comment to this post
> > <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/newt-gingrich-threatens...>
>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/doctorbulldog.wordpress.co...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/...>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/26577/>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2...>
>
> > WordPress
>
> > WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> > Manage Subscriptions
> > <http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5bbc60f6c05099d6a6dd249fa199389a&...>
> > | Unsubscribe
> > <http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5bbc60f6c05099d6a6dd249fa199389a&...>
> > | Express yourself. Start a blog.
> > <http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>
>
> > *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
> >http://subscribe.wordpress.com<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/>
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

educrats

"Underpaid Teachers" Richly Rewarded

Posted by Neal McCluskey

Everybody knows that teachers are underpaid, right? Actually, we don't know what teachers should be paid because individual teachers aren't allowed to negotiate their pay with the people using their services--unions and politicians do the bargaining. Still, a few stats in aWashington Post article about a proposed contract for Washington D.C. public school teachers suggest that, if anything, many D.C. teachers are overpaid.

Using salary information in the article, we see that under their current contract D.C. teachers must work 7 hours a day for 192 days, and their starting salary is $39,000. Per-hour, that comes to $29.01, which beats the mean hourly pay for all D.C. residents by 59 cents.

Under the proposed contract, the starting salary would become $42,500 to work 7 ½ hours for 196 days, actually dropping the hourly rate by 10 cents. Importantly, though, the four extra days would be dedicated to "training," and the extra half-hour to "planning," so there really wouldn't be much work added to the teachers' load.

As impressive as these starting salary numbers are, though, the real eye-opener is at the topof the teachers' salary ladder. Currently, the highest rung on the ladder is $75,000, or a hefty $55.80 an hour. Adjusting that to 40 hours per week for 50 weeks a year (roughly what most people work) the highest paid teacher would get an annual salary of $111,600 – not bad! Under the new contract that would become even more generous, with the unadjusted salary rising to $87,000, the new hourly rate hitting $59.18, and the "normal" annual salary reaching $118,360! And, of course, none of this includes teachers' benefits, which are generally considered to be more generous than what's available in the private sector.

Now, before anyone starts calling for my head, as happened the last time I wrote on this topic, let me say I don't doubt that that many teachers work beyond their contracted hours. Of course, there's also no question that lots of people work in excess of their time "on the clock." With that in mind, the hours in the teachers' contract are what teachers have agreed to, so it is the only fair basis on which to calculate their remuneration.

So let's put this in perspective. As mentioned, a starting D.C. teacher makes more per hour than the average wage for all D.C. residents. Even more surprising, under the proposed contract a teacher making the top wage would get $12.16 more per-hour than the average D.C. citizen in a management position, including sales managers, marketing managers, and IT managers. Indeed, the only managerial group that would make more than teachers on an hourly basis would be the absolute head honchos -- chief executives.

And here's the kicker: What have D.C. teachers produced to deserve all this money? According to the Post article's main point, a school system so decrepit that parents are leaving it in droves.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

JP Daily Quran and Hadith

IN THE NAME OF "ALLAH"
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

Note : Please Let me know if you are unable to have the images correctly.
--

Thanks & Best regards,

Imran Ilyas
Dubai
Cell: 00971509483403

Why Democracy?

Why Democracy?
by John Tyner
Johnnyedge

Over the last month or so, people have been throwing off, or trying to throw off, the shackles of their oppressive governments. It started in Tunisia, spread to Egypt, then Yemen, Bahrain, and now Libya. In every instance, though, the protestors have been calling for democracy. I suppose that's understandable; the grass on democracy's side of the fence probably looks and probably is a lot greener than that on the dictatorial side. I'm probably underselling democracy with that statement. After all, democracy is often held out as the gold standard for (good) government. Winston Churchill endorsed it, saying, "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others." Despite the actual wording, when reading or hearing Churchill's statement, people often "hear" that democracy is the best form of government. In reality, we can rightly infer from the statement that all forms of government are terrible. In Churchill's opinion, democracy is just the least terrible.

Democracy is often referred to as " tyranny of the majority" and Lysander Spooner explained, very eloquently, why:

[O]ther men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.

Democracy is a very seductive mistress because it promises the people control of the government. It gives the illusion of self-governance and individual rights. It implies that no injustice can be done so long as the "will of the people" is done. It provides nothing of the sort, though. As explained, when the people vote, a majority may and does impose its will upon the minority. "Will of the people" is rightly replaced with "will of the majority." This can be seen most prominently in the struggle in the U.S. for gay rights, and more specifically, gay marriage. In California, in 2008, 52% of the population denied gay people the right to marry. Proposition 19 last year, also in California, is another example where barely more than half of the population (53.5%) used their majority position to deny the use of marijuana – the actual use of which affects no one other than the user – to the rest.

There is also the problem that democracy doesn't scale. The founders knew this when they set up the U.S. House of Representatives. That is, it is not practical to hold a vote among the entire population for every matter to come before the U.S. federal government, so instead the population elects representatives to act in their stead. These representatives then practice democracy amongst themselves. This is even worse, though. Each representative currently represents just under 700,000 people. How can one person adequately represent the diverse views of almost three quarters of a million people?

Choosing between two candidates is analogous [to] going to Walmart and being presented with two shopping carts already filled with items. Everyone will leave the store with the same cart of goods. Each cart contains products that a person may want and products that one wouldn't choose to have, but the voter is not able to take anything out of either cart.

Not only that, but:

[E]ven though the voters are promised a particular set of goods in the shopping cart that won the election, that doesn't mean that the voters will receive that set of goods. The candidate could promise to deliver a specific set of policies, but after the election, the office holder is free to deliver a different set of policies to the voters, either because the candidate changed his position on some issues or because he was being deceitful during the campaign in order to gain political support.

The same can be said at other levels of government, even down to the city level, where a handful of elected officials make decisions on behalf of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. So, the question should not be "why democracy," but "why government." At the federal level, we have things like TSA body scanners, highway checkpoints, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial assassinations, and indefinite detentions. At the state level, we have the aforementioned denial of gay rights and marijuana use, prohibitive gun laws, and smoking bans. At the city level, we've got Happy Meal "bans" and watering limits and landscaping restrictions. And at all levels, we have taxes and police. You may be inclined to agree with some or all of these items, but that's not the point. The point is that some person or group who you may or may not have voted for or even heard of is, in one way or another controlling you. So, perhaps the question should really be, "why do people choose to be ruled."

Whether they know it or not, most people are Hobbesians, by which I mean that they believe or are fearful that the natural state of humanity is " war of all against all." They may very well be right, and in order to protect themselves from this "war," people institute governments and cede the use of force to said government, presumably to prevent the use of force amongst the people themselves. Locke argued that people do not even have the ability to cede this power in the first place, but nevertheless, ceding this power to a government presents a clear contradiction. If all people by their very nature would war with all others, why would anyone cede to anyone else the legal use of violence? James Madison touched on this idea in The Federalist, No. 51 when he said that if men were angels, there would be no need for government. He argued further that because men are not angels, pitting them against each other within government was the best that we could do. Men, competing with each other, from different branches of government, would restrain each other.

But what kind of person runs for public office? Madison failed to foresee that even the so-called "separation of powers" could not restrain men forever. Entry into politics does not require any particular skill or morality. It simply requires some combination of money, connections, personality, and a desire to rule others, particularly the last one. In fact, that last reason is probably the main reason that anyone runs for office. The idea that the world would be a better place if <insert your name here> was in charge is probably not foreign to anyone. To succeed in government, however, involves backroom deals and "compromises" ensuring that only the least moral and most willing to deal away their principles will rise to the top. Thus, government will ultimately be populated with the worst people in society, and it is only a matter of time before they decide to work together to turn their legal authority to use force on the people themselves. It turns out that government is really a sort of Faustian bargain. Government is instituted to protect people from those in society who would do harm, but how much worse is it when those who would do harm wield the power of the state?

The people of the revolting Middle Eastern and African nations now have a rare opportunity to truly be free. I fear, though, that like many before them, they will make the mistake of putting in place a government that will ultimately betray them and once again oppress them. If they are lucky, it will be to a lesser degree.

Reprinted with permission from Johnnyedge.

War Über Alles

War Über Alles
by Paul Craig Roberts

The United States government cannot get enough of war. With Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's regime falling to a rebelling population, CNN reports that a Pentagon spokesman said that the U.S. is looking at all options from the military side.

Allegedly, the Pentagon, which is responsible for one million dead Iraqis and an unknown number of dead Afghans and Pakistanis, is concerned about the deaths of 1,000 Libyan protesters.

While the Pentagon tries to figure out how to get involved in the Libyan revolt, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific is developing new battle plans to take on China in her home territory. Four-star Admiral Robert Willard thinks the U.S. should be able to whip China in its own coastal waters.

The admiral thinks one way to do this is to add U.S. Marines to his force structure so that the U.S. can eject Chinese forces from disputed islands in the East and South China seas.

It is not the U.S. who is disputing the islands, but if there is a chance for war anywhere, the admiral wants to make sure we are not left out.

The admiral also hopes to develop military ties with India and add that country to his clout. India, the admiral says, "is a natural partner of the United States" and "is crucial to America's 21st-century strategy of balancing China." The U.S. is going to seduce the Indians by selling them advanced aircraft.

If the plan works out, we will have India in NATO helping us to occupy Pakistan and presenting China with the possibility of a two-front war.

The Pentagon needs some more wars so there can be some more "reconstruction."

Reconstruction is very lucrative, especially as Washington has privatized so many of the projects, thus turning over to well-placed friends many opportunities to loot. Considering all the money that has been spent, one searches hard to find completed projects. The just released report from the Commission on Wartime Contracting can't say exactly how much of the $200,000 million in Afghan "reconstruction" disappeared in criminal behavior and blatant corruption, but $12,000 million alone was lost to "overt fraud."

War makes money for the politically connected. While the flag-waving population remains proud of the service of their sons, brothers, husbands, fathers, cousins, wives, mothers and daughters, the smart boys who got the fireworks started are rolling in the mega-millions.

As General Smedley Butler told the jingoistic American population, to no avail, "war is a racket." As long as the American population remains proud that their relatives serve as cannon fodder for the military/security complex, war will remain a racket.

http://vdare.com/roberts/110225_war_uber_alles.htm

An Earthquake is Brewing in U.S. Economic History

Opinions
An Earthquake is Brewing in U.S. Economic History
Brian Domitrovic
Feb. 22 2011 - 5:13 am

Every nation has its "founding myth," as we are apt to hear from post-modern quarters. But is this ever true when it comes to our economic history. In curricula from K-12 to history graduate school, it is staple fare that as a new nation in the early nineteenth century, the United States nurtured its "infant industry" into adulthood by having a protective tariff that kept out cheap mass-made European goods. After a century of trade protectionism, the story goes, U.S. industry was so strong that it was the most productive in the world.

You can find this argument everywhere in historical scholarship and commentary, from textbook to shining sea. There is no need to name names; if you're someone in American historiography, you've made or otherwise acquiesced to this argument.

And yet it has never rung true in economics. Free trade is a major verity in that discipline, and for good reason. The case for it has been made nine ways to Sunday. In 1936, for example, the Adam Smith contention that tariffs make the domestic economy poorer got a powerful analytical lift in the elaboration of the "Lerner symmetry." The point -- proven geometrically by economist Abba Lerner -- is that tariffs hurt exporters as much as they help home industries. When a tariff raises the price level, enabling marginal domestic producers to survive, it also raises the cost of inputs to exporters. The whole thing is a wash as goes trade, and things are more expensive.

So how did the tariff nurture infant industries back in the old days again? It didn't, as has been the consensus in economics for decades. But given that economists can draw (as in graphs) and mark up equations better than they can write, the word never really got out. Historians, untutored in economics, and more interested in politics, society, and culture, followed the path of least resistance and associated the prodigious growth of the American economy in the 19th century with the fact that there was a tariff all the while.

Well, this holiday is about to come to an end. The dissertation recently completed by political scientist Phillip W. Magness (of the Institute for Humane Studies and American University) lays out the whole thing. Magness shows that it is nonsensical to hold that a reduction in aggregate real income -- the necessary result of a tariff -- could possibly cause an industrial boom. He essentially offers to introduce American history to American economic history, and bids that a new central narrative be written.

What might that be, given that we know that the U.S. (excepting the South, which, crucially, opposed the tariff) industrialized like gangbusters in the 19th century? How about this bombshell: Congress was robustly aware of the "Laffer curve" effects of the tariff in this period, avant la lettre. Magness has combed the Congressional debates, and he has determined that in the hurly-burly of tariff-setting in the 19th century, the balance of interests often lay where the tariff rate would result in the most federal revenue. Going past that rate, where the tariff would truly become protectionist as receipts flagged, could not muster a plurality. High tariff receipts are, of course, incompatible with the idea that imports are not coming into the country.

Magness goes on to suggest that what was lost with the rise of the income tax in the 20th century was the realism that had prevailed in tariff politics in the 19th century. Tariff debates centered on identifying the tipping point where tax increases become counterproductive. The tariff occupied more of Congress' attention than did any other issue in the 19th century, including during the slavery-laden antebellum years. It turns out that the touchstone of American political economy in the heroic period of industrialization was the Laffer curve. Who knew.

A tariff is overtly a tax on the many -- the whole nation -- for the benefit of the few -- business owners having a hard time competing. In contrast, the progressive income tax strives to soak the few and spread out the boon to the many. There is more incentive to stay on topic about the real effects of taxation in the former than the latter regime. No wonder we've lost a full point of yearly GDP since the U.S. in 1913 effectively traded the tariff for the income tax as its principal revenue source.

Here's hoping that historians will have the courage to upset the settled narrative about American development and, indeed, rewrite the textbooks. There is nothing to be embarrassed about. In the music of J.S. Bach, you spend a lot of time building up a chord structure before getting the sense of nearing something ethereal. But just before you get there, the music goes back to rebuilding the groundwork, with a few salient revisions, just to get it right. Phil Magness is showing us how to make American economic history well-tempered.

http://blogs.forbes.com/briandomitrovic/2011/02/22/an-earthquake-is-brewing-in-u-s-economic-history/

Fwd: Don't Miss TOM WOODS at CSU - December 9th at 7pm. RSVP here!

TOM WOODS:

How Economic Illiteracy is Dismantalling Your Life

Young Americans for Liberty

The Associated Students of Colorado State University
cordially invites you to attend this event free of charge:

Thursday, December 9th 2010

7:00pm

The Lory Center East Ballroom

Colorado State University, Fort Collins

Seating is limited - please RSVP here:

www.TomWoodsCSU.com

The establishment is trying to pretend the financial crisis doesn't exist. It's not exactly clear how the Federal Reserve's policy of pushing interest rates well below where the free market would have set them, thereby inflating the biggest asset bubble in the history of the world, could be the fault of the free market, or attributable to "laissez faire." But since hardly anyone discusses the Fed, no one has to answer this inconvenient question. The Fed's very existence is a violation of laissez faire. Yet the destructive effects of what it does are then blamed on the market. This charade has gone on long enough.

Educate yourself.

Join us for this rare opportunity to learn more about today's economic myths from one of the country's foremost experts, Tom Woods.

Invite your friends and family - simply have them RSVP here: www.TomWoodCSU.com

Location, Driving Directions, and Parking and Campus Map

The best parking is at the Lory Student Center/Engineering Building parking lot

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of ten books. A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is also a frequent economic contributor on Judge Andrew Napalitano's "Freedom Watch".

Read More about Thomas E. Woods

--
Brandon McLaughlin
BMacLiberty@gmail.com
(970) 430-6107

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

committee." I happen to be among the most intelligent people ever
>born on this Earth. I could have gone into... politics (God forbid!)

And yet rather than providing this Constitution so we can all be in awe
you spend meaningless effort spewing fallacy and self-aggrandizement.

A true shame.

Regard$,
--MJ

Our moment permits interest in one question only: Will we, of
Deadwood, be more than just targets for ass-fucking? -- Al Swearengen

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Truth:

rights" which would guarantee:

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security
Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American
security, and that America's place in the world depended upon how far
these and similar rights had been carried into practice.

If someone has a 'right' to employment, he could go into *any* company and simply demand DEMAND his job. After all, it is his by 'right'. It would not matter if he did his job well or even at all since it was his by 'right'.
What Roosevelt puts forth HERE is a list of WISHES.
What is 'unfair' competition? Who gets to decide? Why them? Monopolies are created through barriers to entry in the marketplace and have ONLY occurred through Government.

Who will provide for all these WISHES? What happens when the costs for these WISHES exceeds what can be plundered?
We are rapidly reaching the point where the WISHES for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are going to provide a real life demonstration.

Regard$,
--MJ

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law which may be an isolated case is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole with their common aim of legal plunder constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.
Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."

But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical in fact, absurd to assume otherwise.
The Choice Before Us

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

The few plunder the many.
Everybody plunders everybody.
Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate). ^[2]

-- Frederic Bastiat

Re: The poor are not getting poorer

The civil war wouldn't have had to be

fought if nobody bought slave made cotton.
---

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty. -- Karl Marx, 1861

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

And yet you provide another fallacy spew INSTEAD
of putting your panacea Constitution out for all to see and revere.
Pity.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Nothing is more securely lodged than the
ignorance of the experts" Nobel laureate and Austrian economist F. A. Hayek

At 06:16 AM 2/26/2011, you wrote:
>MJ: You are NOT wanted on this post! In the last few weeks you've
>managed to give your cook-booked quotations of others, and your own
>breakfast-table-written "constitution" of sorts. But you have not
>even gone back into my thread to read about my New Constitution, which
>is detailed in essays that highlight the apt portions of my document.
>And you obviously have no "Regard$" for anyone but yourself. ***
>Since my base philosophy is pro-capitalism and pro minimumist
>government, when you attack me—the author-messenger—you are revealing
>yourself to be a socialist and probably a communist. If it offends
>you that I have figured you out, take your "quotes" and your "regards"
>elsewhere. You are not wanted here! — J. A. A. — Patriot
> >
>On Feb 25, 10:45 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > And yet ANOTHER fallacy spew.
> > Let's see this panacea of yours. What -- exactly
> > -- are you afraid of? That it is shit?
> >
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> >
> > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
> >
> > At 10:36 AM 2/25/2011, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Dear MJ: You sir, are a total BUM! What I have written describing my
> > >New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would
> > >fill several "War and Peace"-size novels. Not a single WORD of what I
> > >have written supports socialism nor communism! I am in favor of
> > >having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to
> > >zero interaction with individual citizens. 'My' government will no
> > >longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be
> > >value-added, only. And I have nixed having the government maintain
> > >records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent.
> > >Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict"
> > >the person they failed to convict the last time. My corrections of
> > >corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification
> > >enough to ratify my New Constitution! Presently, the USA is a police
> > >state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures. And
> > >the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate. I've put
> > >them in their place, big time!
> >
> > >You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher. I do not appreciate in
> > >the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
> > >of some kind. Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
> > >not mine. I am not playing games, here. If you would like to get
> > >back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
> > >two paragraphs or less. Unless I see the words: "I pro-capitalist
> > >and anti-socialist"… included, then I will know for sure that you are
> > >just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
> > >Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
> > >the latter. — J. A. A. —
> >
> > >On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to
> > > > see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
> > > > My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
> > > > endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
> > > > true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see it'.
> > > > Pity.
> >
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
> >
> > > > "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> > > > consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
> >
> > > > At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you wrote:
> >
> > > > >Dear Jonathan: Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" attitude on
> > > > >MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist-
> > > > >communist. You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA! —
> > > > >John A. Armistead — Patriot
> >
> > > > >On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > How does John expect to implement his New
> > > Constitution if no one is ever
> > > > > > allowed to read it? He sounds like a
> wanna-be dictator in the making.
> >
> > > > > > On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > > > scarcely been commented on. I am
> NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> > > > > > > else's feedback on what I have
> written! Most would love to see the
> > > > > > > entire document so that they can
> make grandiose criticisms about this
> > > > > > > or that. From my personal life, I
> have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > > > > > > our corrupt state, local, and
> federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > > > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > had. That is why my New
> Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > > > > > > out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > > > > > > President
> > > > > > > himself, who does not respond
> appropriately for a logical request of
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > single law-abiding citizen for the
> redress of a grievance. To wit:
> >
> > > > > > > Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed down your
> > > > > > > throats.
> >
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Dear Keith: Thanks for your rational-toned reply. My New
> > > > > > >> Constitution will indeed be
> copyrighted. But only those parts of it
> > > > > > >> not copied and adapted from the
> original, public-domain document.
> > > > > > >> This isn't being done for making money
> > > from the sale of copies, but to
> > > > > > >> be sure no crazies print 'modified
> copies' that would, maliciously,
> > > > > > >> make me look badï¿½as part of a
> > > socialist/communist plot to side-track
> > > > > > >> my efforts.
> >
> > > > > > >> I'm not sure you nor others realize
> > > that my document has, for fourteen
> > > > > > >> years, withstood the test of
> correcting the daily crises highlighted
> > > > > > >> in the news, and the regular
> > > injustices coming from our courts. What
> > > > > > >> is included is at least ten times
> broader in scope than the original
> > > > > > >> constitution. Realize that I have had the advantage (over the
> > > > > > >> Founding Fathers) of seeing what
> has and what hasn't worked with our
> > > > > > >> Constitution.
> >
> > > > > > >> That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > > > >> scarcely been commented on. I am NOT
> > > wishing to have your nor anyone
> > > > > > >> else's feedback on what I have
> written! Most would love to see the
> > > > > > >> entire document so that they can make
> > > grandiose criticisms about this
> > > > > > >> or that. From my personal life, I
> > > have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > > > > > >> our corrupt state, local, and
> federal governments that allow me to
> > > > > > >> speak from personal experience that
> > > few if any other person could have
> > > > > > >> had. That is why my New
> Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > > > > > >> out of office any public official or
> > > employee, including the President
> > > > > > >> himself, who does not respond
> > > appropriately for a logical request of a
> > > > > > >> single law-abiding citizen for the
> redress of a grievance. To wit:
> >
> > > > > > >> "1st Amendment: No law shall be
> made regarding the establishment of
> > > > > > >> peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > > > > > >> government, its campaigns, processes,
> > > slogans, and disbursements shall
> > > > > > >> be secular. No law nor private or
> civil action shall abridge: the
> > > > > > >> freedom of speech; the freedom of
> a fair and pro-democracy press or
> > > > > > >> other medium; the right of People
> to peaceably assemble; *** and the
> > > > > > >> right of any Citizen or group to
> petition government or any of its
> > > > > > >> branches or departments for redress of grievances. Citizens so
> > > > > > >> petitioning government shall
> receive appropriate, relevant, timely,
> > > > > > >> comprehensive, helpful and just
> > > responses from proper authorities who
> > > > > > >> have thoroughly read, understood, and
> > > addressed each salient aspect of
> > > > > > >> the grievances or requests for
> > > directions or clarifications. Failure
> > > > > > >> to so respond to a rightful petition
> > > for redress of a grievance shall,
> > > > > > >> on a single provable instance,
> terminate the apt oneï¿½s employment,
> > > > > > >> especially those in management or
> > > public officeï¿½including judges and
> > > > > > >> justicesï¿½who ignore, frustrate or
> > > give the run-around to any competent
> > > > > > >> Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly
> > > > > > >> addressed, or in having his or her
> civil rights fully upheld. No
> > > > > > >> judge or justice shall presume
> that by performing the above required
> > > > > > >> duties, that they in any way might
> be compromising their objectivity
> > > > > > >> or fairness in court; justice be
> not ï¿½blindï¿½, but well informed.
> > > > > > >> Freedom of the press or other medium
> > > mandates that there be reasonable
> > > > > > >> truthfulness in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or
> > > > > > >> deliberate omission of the
> > > truthï¿½except in cases of obvious fiction or
> > > > > > >> satireï¿½is prohibited. Stating
> or implying that a particular news
> > > > > > >> medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is
> > > > > > >> prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly
> > > > > > >> occurring accompanying comments;
> commentary programs financed by, or
> > > > > > >> ideologically screened by, the
> same news medium; editorials named as
> > > > > > >> being authored by management;
> > > editorial comments by others that are in
> > > > > > >> any way ideologically censored,
> omitted or screened; or by comments
> > > > > > >> occurring at specific times or
> designated locations that most would
> > > > > > >> come to associate with the management
> > > of such medium, even if such are
> > > > > > >> innocuous. No medium shall be a
> forum for promoting the ideology of
> > > > > > >> its management or owners, nor
> shall they employ anyone who uses such
> > > > > > >> job to hawk their personal political
> > > preferencesï¿½at risk of loss of
> > > > > > >> license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
> > > > > > >> promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
> > > > > > >> analyze, assess, summarize, or
> make subjective judgments about any
> > > > > > >> pending election or referendum. Nor
> > > shall they invite others outside
> > > > > > >> of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the
> > > > > > >> candidates or referenda
> issuesï¿½on an as occurs basisï¿½is allowed,
> > > > > > >> provided there are no comments,
> nor actions, as above, and provided
> > > > > > >> the same unbiased coverage is given to
> > > all of the candidates or to all
> > > > > > >> of the referenda issues. It shall
> be a 10 year felony to repress
> > > > > > >> truthful news reporting in any medium
> > > by threatening legal action. No
> > > > > > >> medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> > > > > > >> others, but if a person
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more »
>
>--
>Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Libyan Soldiers

Libyan Soldiers
Posted by Laurence Vance on February 25, 2011 06:32 PM

I see that Libyan soldiers are fighting against their own people. But why should we condemn them? They are just following orders. They must obey their superiors. They didn't ask for this mission. Killing Libyans was not in their job description. They joined the military because they were patriotic. They are serving their country. All criticism toward the soldiers' actions should be directed at the Libyan government and politicians.

But, but, but . . . what they are doing is wrong! So what. They are just doing their jobs as loyal Libyan soldiers.

What apologists for the U.S. military really believe is that American soldiers are the grand exception. Foreign soldiers are evil unless they do our bidding. It is only American soldiers who are heroes for obeying orders and killing on command. And don't think that American soldiers wouldn't do the same thing to us as the Libyan soldiers are doing to Libyans. We already get it in the neck by the American TSA and police and DEA and ATF. And if American soldiers refused to kill Americans, then they would be disobeying orders, thinking for themselves, and refusing to follow an unjust command -- things that they are condemned for now if they refuse to kill on command in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pak-US joint army operation video leaked

Pak-US joint army operation video leaked
Posted By Farhan Z Shah On 26/02/2011

Islamabad: The US forces stationed in Afghanistan conduct combine operations in Pakistani territories with Pakistani paramilitary forces deployed on Pak-Afghan Border.

Officials of Private Security are also reported to be involved in such meetings and the planning of such operations.

It is emerged after a video, apparently recorded in Pakistan's Mehmand Agency area, that although forces of both the countries pretend publicly to operate separately but in actual it is not the case.

The video shows US and Pakistani forces conduct joint operations and it's a routine for US troops to engage in operations within Pakistani borders.

Even in recent past, American commandos have completed two missions in Pakistani tribal area out of which one resulted in deaths of Pakistani Soldiers deployed at Border Check Post. The second operation ended with civilian causalities.

At first, ISPR, official media relations hand of Pakistan Army, denied it but after the second incident fierce protest was lodged and NATO supply line was sealed in consequence.

During those two operations Afghan government continued to blame Pakistan militants and supporters of Taliban of being involved in anti-Nato activities and added that they took shelter in Pakistan tribal area after completing such tasks.

Video was recorded in December 2010 in Pakistani tribal belt Mehmand agency, near a region call Sora Darra. It shows nine US soldiers along with a civil-dressed American are busy in meeting with Pakistani Forces.

Earlier on Friday in an assembly session of National Assembly, Minister of External Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar has accepted the presence of 851 Americans in Pakistan including 554 diplomats and 297 non diplomats.

Shooting style of video and the reaction of Pakistani and American troops develop a feeling that the person who records it was one of the meeting participants. Short mobile video is stretched to over 3-minute duration.

The video of alleged meeting before joint operation also shows Pakistani Border Force or Frontier Constabulary officials sitting with their captain rank commander. Soldiers of both the countries seem to be involved in group discussion on any issue while a private security official is continuously taking notes.

Earlier, experts with insights on Pakistan's Foreign Policy and Pak-US ties have said that over 5,000 US troops are engaged in operational activities in Pakistan came on visas granted after special permission from Pakistan's Envoy to US Hussain Haqqani and the Pakistan government.

The video shows serving of famous Qahwa (tea), a symbol of hospitality in tribal areas, to US troops.

The video of Pakistan army convened meeting seems to be recorded near any Pakistani check post. Three minutes 27 seconds long video also reveals that two US troops with their four Pakistani counterparts standing on top of a mountain were looking around alertly while rest were busy in the meeting sitting in a circle on floor.

It is evident from various media reports that Michael George Fernandez otherwise known as Raymond Davis, arrested Jan 27 on killing of two Pakistanis in Lahore, was responsible for developing networks to protect US interest in the restive South Asian country besides having a close eye on extremists groups.

Combine video of Pakistani and US troops once again raises the question that while opposing US operations publicly, Pakistan government, in fact, is a crucial part of the ongoing war initiated on hidden US nod.

It is also claimed both by US and Pakistan armies that they had eliminating militants and Talibans in their separate or combine operations, a claim contradicted by independent sources and United Nations' reports. The reports maintained that most of killings in Afghanistan after 2001 were of civilians. The last year's report of UN confirmed that more than 70 killings involved civilians.

Former Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) chief and defense analyst General (Retd) Hameed Gul was reported saying that information emerged during Raymod Davis case and subsequent US attitude had reaffirmed that Pakistan should have to review its ties and policy regarding a war waged to benefit the world super power.

More importantly, in a telephonic contact between ISI head Lt. General Shuja Pasha and CIA chief Levin Penta, the former has demanded to US to reveal all of its troops present in Pakistan; however, the conversation did not cover, at least on record level, issue of combine public operations.

This is to remember that information is circulating in many circles that there are over 1,000 CIA agents in Pakistan who were granted permission by the civilian government while overcrossing the Pakistan's agencies.

URL to article: http://www.thenewstribe.co.uk/2011/02/pak-us-joint-army-operation-video-leaked/

پاک امریکہ افواج کےمشترکہ آپریشن کی وڈیومنظرعام پر
Posted By Shahid Abbasi On 26/02/2011

افغانستان میں موجود امریکی افواج پاکستانی علاقوں کے اندرآکردونوں ملکوں کی سرحدوں پرتعینات پاکستانی پیراملٹری فورسز کے ساتھ مشترکہ کارروائیاں کرتی ہیں۔ان مواقع پرامریکی فوج کےلئے کام کرنے والی نجی سیکورٹی کمپنیوں کے اہلکاربھی ان میٹنگز اور کارروائیوں کی منصوبہ بندی کے عمل میں شریک رہتے ہیں۔

پاکستان کے علاقے مہمند ایجنسی سے منسوب ایک ویڈیو کےمنظرعام پر آنے کے بعد یہ بات سامنے آئی ہے کہ دونوں ملکوں کی افواج اگر چہ عوامی سطح پرخود کو الگ الگ دائروں تک محدود رکھتی ہیں لیکن عملی طورپرایسا نہیں ہے بلکہ پاکستانی اورامریکی فورسزمشترکہ کارروائیاں کرتی اورامریکییوں کاپاکستانی علاقوں میں آنا معمول کی بات ہے۔

ماضی میں امریکی کمانڈوز پاکستان کے قبائلی علاقے میں دو زمینی کارروائیاں بھی کر چکی ہیں جن میں سے ایک میں پاکستان کی سرحدی چوکی پرتعینات فوجی اہلکار ہلاک ہوئے تھے۔ دوسری کارروائی خیبر ایجنسی کے سرحدی گائوں میں کی گئی تھی جس میں سویلین ہلاکتیں بھی ہوئی تھیں۔ان دونوں کارروائیوں کی ابتداء میں پاکستانی فوج کے میڈیاریلیشن کے ذمہ دار ادارے آئی ایس پی آر نے ان واقعات کی تردید کی تھی۔تاہم دوسری کارروائی پرامریکہ سے شدید احتجاج کیاگیاتھا جس کے تحت پاکستان کے راستے افغانستان میں تعینات امریکی وناٹوفورسز کو جانے والی سپلائی لائن معطل کر دی گئی تھی۔

ان دونوں کارروائیوں کے موقع پر افغانستان کی جانب سے تواتر کے ساتھ پاکستان پریہ الزام لگایا جاتا رہا تھا کہ عسکریت پسند اور طالبان کے حمایتی عناصر ناٹوفورسز کے بعد کارروائیاں کر کے پاکستان کے قبائلی علاقوں میں پناہ لیتے ہیں۔

گزشتہ برس دسمبر میں تیار کی گئی ویڈیومبینہ طورپرپاکستانی قبائلی پٹی مہمند ایجنسی کےعلاقے SORAN DARRA کی ہے۔جہاں 9کےقریب امریکی فوجی ایک سویلین لباس میں ملبوس امریکی نظرآنے والے فرد کے ساتھ پاکستانی فورسز سے میٹنگ میں مصروف نظر آتے ہیں۔

اس سے قبل جمعہ کوپاکستان کی قومی اسمبلی میں وزیر مملکت برائے خارجہ حناربانی کھر یہ تسلیم کر چکی ہیں کہ پاکستان میں851 امریکی موجود ہیں جن میں سے سفارتی اہلکار554اورغیرسفارتی عملہ 297کی تعداد میں ہے۔ حالیہ ویڈیو بنانے کے انداز اورتیاری کے دوران موقع پرموجود پاکستانی وامریکی فوجیوں کے ردعمل سے محسوس یہ ہوتا ہے کہ ریکارڈنگ کرنے والے کا تعلق یہیں موجود فوجیوں سے ہے۔ موبائل کیمرے سے بنائی گئی ویڈیو کی طوالت 3منٹ سے زائد کی ہے۔

مبینہ طور پر مہمند ایجنسی میں عسکری آپریشن سے قبل منصوبہ بندی کےلئے ہونے والی مشترکہ میٹنگ کی ویڈیو میں پاکستان کی سرحدی فورس فرنٹئیرکانسٹیبلری کے اہلکار اپنے کیپٹن رینک کے کمانڈر کے ساتھ وہاں موجود دکھائےگئے ہیں۔ایک گروپ میں بیٹھے ہوئے دونوں ملکوں کے فوجی باہم گفتگو میں مصروف ہیں جب کہ سویلین لباس میں موجود کسی نجی سیکورٹی ایجنسی کا اہلکار دکھنے والا فرد اس دوران مسلسل اپنے پاس موجود کاغذات پرکچھ نوٹ کرتے ہوئے دیکھا جا سکتا ہے۔

قبل ازیں پاکستان کی خارجہ پالیسی اورپاک امریکہ تعلقات پر نظررکھنے والے مبصرین یہ کہہ چکے ہیں کہ ملک میں 5ہزار سےزائد امریکی اہلکارموجود ہیں جن میں سے بیشترامریکہ میں تعینات پاکستانی سفیر حسین حقانی اورحکومت پاکستان کی خصوصی اجازت کے بعد حاصل ہونے والے ویزہ پرپاکستان آئے ہیں۔

مبینہ عسکری آپریشن سے قبل تیار کی گئی ویڈیو کے دوران امریکی فوجیوں کےلئے قبائلی علاقوں میں مہمان نوازی کی علامت کے طور پر معروف قہوہ لایا جاتا ہے۔پاکستانی فوج سے کی جانے والی میٹنگ پر مبنی اس ویڈیو کی تیاری کسی پاکستانی چیک پوسٹ کے قریب کی گئی محسوس ہوتی ہے ۔تین منٹ ستائیس سیکنڈ کی طوالت رکھنے والی اس ویڈیو کی ریکارڈنگ میں یہ بھی دکھایا گیا ہے کہ دو امریکی اورچار کے قریب پاکستانی اہلکار پہاڑی چوٹی پرکھڑے اردگرد کے علاقے پرنظررکھےہوئے ہیں جب کہ ان کے درمیان میں زمین پر بیٹھے باقی افراد ایک دائرے کی صورت میں مسلسل میٹنگ کر رہے ہوتے ہیں۔

27جنوری کولاہور میں دو پاکستانیوں کے قتل کرنے کے بعد گرفتار ہونے والے مائیکل جارج فرنانڈس عرف ریمنڈڈیوس کے متعلق بھی یہ اطلاعات میڈیا رپورٹس کا حصہ بن چکی ہیں کہ پاکستان میں انتہاپسند گروپوں پر نظر رکھنے کے ساتھ اس کی ذمہ داری امریکی مفادات کے تحفظ کےلئے نیٹ ورکس کاقیام بھی تھا۔

پاکستانی وامریکی فوجیوں کی مشترکہ ویڈیو منظرعام پرآنے کے بعد ایک بار پھر یہ سوال سامنے آیا ہے کہ حکومت پاکستان عوامی سطح پرتوامریکی کارروائیوں کی مخالفت کرتی ہے لیکن درپردہ امریکی ایماء پرجاری جنگ کا اہم حصہ ہے۔

امریکی وپاکستانی افواج کی جانب سے کئے جانے والے مشترکہ یا انفرادی آپریشنز میں عسکریت پسندوں اور اتحادی افواج کے خلاف برسرپیکارطالبان کوختم کرنے کادعوی کیا جاتا رہاہے لیکن آزاد ذرائع اوراقوام متحدہ کی رپورٹس کے مطابق افغانستان میں 2001ء کے حملے کے بعد سے مرنے والوں کی بڑی تعدادعام سویلینزکی ہے۔گزشتہ برس کے حوالے سے جاری کی جانے والی اقوام متحدہ کی رپورٹ میں بھی یہ تسلیم کیا گیا ہے کہ 70فیصد سے زائد ہلاکتیں سویلینز کی ہیں۔

قبل ازیں آئی ایس آئی کے سابق سربراہ اور دفاعی تجزیہ نگار جنرل ریٹائرڈ حمید گل کا یہ کہناتھاکہ ریمنڈڈیوس ایشو پرسامنے آنے والی معلومات اور امریکی طرز عمل نے یہ طے کر دیا ہے کہ پاکستان کوعالمی قوت کے ساتھ اپنے تعلقات اور اس کے مفادات کی تکمیل کےلئے لڑی جانے والی جنگ میں اپنے کردار پر نظر ثانی کرنا ہو گی۔

آئی ایس آئی کے سربراہ لیفٹیننٹ جنرل شجاع پاشااورسی آئی اے کے سربراہ لیون پینٹا کے درمیان ہونے والے ٹیلیفونک رابطے میں امریکہ سے یہ مطالبہ کیا گیا ہےکہ وہ پاکستان میں موجود اپنے اہلکاروں کو بے نقاب کرے لیکن اب تک کھلے عام کی جانے والی مشترکہ کارروائیوں کے متعلق ریکارڈ کی سطح پرکوئی بات نہیں کی گئی ہے۔

یاد رہے کہ پاکستان میں سی آئی اے کے ایک ہزار سے زائد ایسے ایجنٹس کے متعلق اطلاعات بھی سامنے آچکی ہیں جنیں سویلین حکومت نے پاکستانی ایجنسی کو اوورکراس کر کے ملک میں آنے کی اجازت دی ہے۔

Article taken from The News Tribe | Urdu News | Latest News | Pakistan, South Asia News | Blogs - http://www.thenewstribe.co.uk/urdu

URL to article: http://www.thenewstribe.co.uk/urdu/?p=16673