Rajiv Gandhi : "We have cherished our democracy. Democracy is our strength. We have no illusions that all problems have been resolved. But the democratic way of nation building requires patience, perseverance and a spirit of conciliation. We proclaim the unity of India. It is a fact of transcending significance. But is it not also a fact that most of us, in our daily lives, do not think of ourselves as Indians? We see ourselves as Hindus, Muslims or Christians, or Malyalees, Maharashtrians, Bengalis. Worse, we think of ourselves as Brahmins, Thakurs, Jats, Yadavas and so on and so forth. And we shed blood to uphold our narrow and selfish denominations. We are imprisoned by the narrow, domestic walls of religion, language, caste, and region, blocking out the clear view of a resurgent nation. Political parties, state governments and social organisations promote policies, programmes and ideologies which divide brother from brother and sister from sister. Bonds of fraternity and solidarity yield to the onslaughts of meanness of mind and spirit. Is this the India for which Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi sacrificed their lives?We need to change the scenario of rural areas and for that we need to change the lives of farmers, workers. This is the only way out. We need to take the farmers closer to the use of technology, give them advanced equipments, give them newer variety of seeds and teach them new irrigational methods. On the other side we will also make sure that they get the right price of their production. This way we are trying to help out the farmers.Bringing the 73rd Constitutional amendment, he also brought the idea of 'a government of the people, by the people, for the people' into a real shape.(Strongly advocating Panchayati Raj)…After the country got Independent, the constitution promised the resolution of empowering the third strata of society. First and second is functional from Delhi or functional in capital cities which is decently empowered after several elections. These can not be moved now. But because the third strata is still weak, the weakness passes on to the first and second strata too. People at the top strata become paper lions. This way a complete hollow set up is built and that is what we need to rectify. need to ensure that newest of technology is utilized and used at the rural level. We need to befriend science and technology to jump to higher notches. Distance between concept and implementation needs to be bridged."RAHUL GANDHI : "I have been saying for sometime now that this country started of as one country and every body in this country was poor. Sixty years of work and today we have developed two Indias. One India is the India of opportunity and second India is lacking that opportunity. You can say one India is rich, one India is poor. You can say one India has infrastructure, roads, connectivity and other India does not. You can say one India lives in the cities, the other India doesn't. None of these definitions captures precisely the fact that there are two India. But every one among us knows that there are two Indias. Ensure that it is an India of opportunities for all. Our view is that you need both these Indias to eventually create that One India. The idea is that you take the India with opportunities, you grow that India and you take some of the benefits and you put them into the villages and you engage and involve that India into this first one. That is our view. Out view is that both these Indias have to be merged and that is the idea of Aam Admi.".
The United States has just launched a successful military operation in which Osama bin Laden was captured, killed, and buried. There are many things which would escape the undiscerning eye, especially if you don't have a real working knowledge of these types of operations. I don't work for any government agency, nor was I involved in the operation at all but I do have credentials because of my prior military service and extensive training in combat operations.First of all let's look at the place where bin Laden was captured. The Pakistanis have always been shady in their dealings in this war and there is no doubt in my mind that they have knowingly housed bin Laden and other high ranking Taliban officials for some time now. This would help to account for the reason that they were adamant that no US troops enter into Pakistan. They were also adamant about US drone attacks into their country. If they didn't have anything to hide there should have not been a problem.Remember that bin Laden was neatly hidden away in a military community less than a few hundred meters from the Pakistani military academy.
He was put in a highly fortified compound which made it difficult for anyone to attack and win.Admiral Mike Mullen made a public accusation just a few days ago that Pakistani intelligence was aiding the Taliban. Obviously he knew more than he said out loud.Also notice the timing of the public accusation. It was made just days prior to the operation to overtake bin Laden. I am confident that he knew of the upcoming operation. The accusation served to point all eyes at Pakistan immediately before they were exposed.Remember also that the US knew of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden since last August. They were obviously confident that he would remain there. The reason that it took so long to act was based on several variables. First of all the operation had to be carefully planned, staged, organized, and rehearsed. The SEALs had to have plenty of time to plan and rehearse their part of the operation. I will guarantee that they probably rehearsed hundreds of times and planned for every possible contingency. This is obvious by the success of the fact that they went into a fortified compound and killed all of the hostile inhabitants with no casualties of their own almost defies reality.
I want you to realize the amount of professionalism that this had to take. This was such a high profile operation that they didn't have any room for error and it appears that the operation was perfectly executed.There are some other aspects of the operation that I want to address also. The first is that they had people on the spot capable of testing and positively identifying the remains of bin Laden. They also had someone there who is an expert in Islamic customs and burial. I would not be surprised if this individual or individuals were some day identified as high ranking Moslem officials. The reason for this is to give the Islamic world a credible witness that things were done the way that they should have been. This will cut down on possible negative publicity and propaganda. Burying the body at sea assures that it will never be recovered and used for propaganda purposes.Also note that the body was buried very quickly. This action eliminates any demands for his remains. It also removes a body whose presence could become a rallying point for sympathizers. It also removes a mutilated body from the scene so that there is no chance for a public viewing which would incite anti US sentiment to higher levels.I am sure that there are many more facts which I don't know about which point to the wisdom behind this operation. Our State Department has certainly done it's homework on this operation. Military Ring Express
There are many reasons that an army or a nation will decide to attack another nation. The bottom line is for gain but there are various methods of attack which may be used depending on the objectives of the attacking force. The attacking force will normally want to take and control the sovereign territory of the other country and its indigenous people however the attack may also have another purpose. A good example of this is the expulsion of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm. The purpose of that attack was two fold: First to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait and to destroy as much of their equipment as possible so that he would not be able to mount another attack against Kuwait or any other country in the Blitzkreig is an attack which is designed to take ground and get into the enemies rear area as quickly as possible so the objective is not necessarily to destroy people or equipment. As a matter of fact a blitzing unit will often avoid contact with enemy troops because engaging them will destroy its momentum and slow it down.
The objective of this type of attack is to cut off front line forces from rear elements which will in effect starve them to death. This is essentially the type of action which the US and NATO employed during this action.Speed and violence are the keys to this type of action and are also key in many other types of military action. Surprise is also essential for success. The attacking commander wants to achieve surprise as much as possible but this isn't always practical. Sometimes a major buildup is necessary as was the case in the Persian Gulf War. In this situation the entire world knew that an attack was coming but no one knew the exact date and time. The way that our leaders compensated for this was to attack from an unexpected direction. This in essence functioned as a surprise attack because it caught the enemy totally off guard in the areas where they were good attacker will also attempt to overwhelm the enemies capability to respond by attacking in simultaneous areas at the same time. Another good example of this was the Persian Gulf War.The Iraqi command and control system was hit in every conceivable area possible all at the same time. Telephone communications were attacked as much as possible at the same time radio communication was jammed.
The goal was to cut off the communication of the commanders with their troops so that troops could not be given any kind of orders or directives to respond to the attack. This helped to maintain a level of confusion among the Iraqi troops. Do you remember seeing videos of the initial attack when the Iraqi air defense systems fired their ammunition wildly into the air because they did not have radar fixes on our aircraft. The reason for this was that we had successfully jammed their radar communication systems.A successful attack will use overwhelming force to attack the weakest point possible. The defender who has the mindset that an attacker's goal is to seek him out and destroy him may mistakenly position too many of his forces too close. The smart attacker will bypass a large target such as this and deal with it only after he has used other methods to soften it up before he expends the manpower and equipment against it to destroy it. Tactical and political considerations serve to determine the methods that an attacking commander will use. Each one is effective in its own way and there are many variations which may be used. The commander who fixes his mind on one course of action can very easily make a tactical blunder and lose the battle. Military Ring Express
State Senator James C. Sheehan (D-RI) wrote an article titled The National Popular Vote compact would sideline our state. This article was published in the Westerly Sun of Westerly, Rhode Island.The National Popular Vote Plan is an interstate compact, whereby participating states would agree to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, as opposed to the candidate who secures the most votes in their state. The compact would take effect when enough states (constituting the requisite 270 electoral votes required to win the Presidential election) agree to participate. Currently 8 states and the District of Columbia, constituting 132 Electoral votes, have ratified the compact.Mr. Sheehan argues that under the Plan "big states and big money would be the likely winners and the Rhode Island's voice would go from small to obscure and insignificant."In actuality however, no candidate could win an election by focusing solely on the largest populated state(s). These states tend to cancel each other out; creating an environment wherein candidates will have to garner votes in small and medium sized states as well. California and Texas are the nation's two largest states. California has voted for the Democratic Presidential nominee in the last five elections. In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama won the state with 61% of the vote. There was no serious effort by the Republicans to even contest the state.
Contrariwise, Texas, the second biggest state, has not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter won the state in 1976. There has been no serious effort on the part of Democrats to win the state since 1992. In 2008, while Democrat Barack Obama won the Presidency with a comfortable 52.9% of the vote, Republican John McCain won the loan star state with a formidable 55.4% of the vote.Ironically, under the current winner-take-all regime of awarding Presidential electors, which is employed in 48 states, both large and small states are ignored. The three largest states, California, Texas, and New York are used by candidates merely as ATM machines. Presidential candidates raise campaign money from these states' benefactors, but make no effort to cultivate support from these states' voters. Contrariwise, of the 13 smallest states, only New Hampshire is a perennial showdown state. The other 12 states are "safe states" which receive no attention from the Presidential candidates.As for the influence of "big money," the same amount of money would be raised under the National Popular Vote Plan as is raised presently. The only change is that the preponderance of the money collected "would not" be spent in just 15 battleground states.Under the National Popular Vote Plan, the political voice of the Ocean State would actually be amplified. Currently, the state attracts no attention from Presidential candidates because it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the state will be won by the Democratic nominee by a wide margin. The state last went for a Republican in 1984, as part of Ronald Reagan's 49-state landslide victory. In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama carried 38 of the state's 39 municipalities without even campaigning in the state.Under the National Popular Vote Plan, every vote throughout the nation will be in play. No voter will be ignored because of his or her disadvantageous geopolitical residence. Presidential campaigns will have one goal, to muster as many votes as possible.
Under the current status quo, there is no electoral reason for a candidate to pay any attention to Rhode Island's commercial fishermen, its manufacturing industry, or the state's Agricultural output.Under the National Popular Vote Plan, Presidential candidates will have causes belie to address these issues. They will have an electoral incentive to open campaign offices in Rhode Island, send surrogates to address Rhode Islanders, and to cultivate and galvanize their political bases. Candidates would spend their campaign war chests not just within the 15 or so showdown states, but would likely spend money throughout the nation, including in Rhode Island.Mr. Sheehan warns: "The legislation also proposes to give our state's electoral votes not necessarily to the presidential candidates of our residents' choice but to the candidate who wins a majority of votes across the nation."This statement flies in the face of the fact that more than 70% of Rhode Island voters support a National Popular Vote. When an national election is decided against a voter's chosen candidate, the voter is not likely to take solace in the fact that the candidate captured their state. A supporter of John Kerry from Rhode Island in 2004 was probably not reveling in the fact that the Democratic nominee won the Ocean State. The national election is what counts for the voter, and Kerry lost.At the state level where a National Popular Vote is employed, there is no focus on how a candidate fared in a certain municipality. For example, a voter in Smithfield, Rhode Island was probably not focusing on the fact that Republican Gubernatorial nominee John F. Robitaille handily won the municipality. Instead, the voter was more likely to be focusing on the fact that Independent Candidate Lincoln Chafee won the state.Mr. Sheehan admonishes that under the National Popular Vote Plan: "Major population centers would become even more important in the race for president, while towns and rural areas could be largely ignored." Despite Mr. Sheehan's conclusions, the nation's large urban areas comprise only a smidgen of the total electorate. In fact, the nation's top 25 cities comprise only 12% of the electorate, and the nation's five largest populated cities constitute just 6% of the electorate. Accordingly, to win the national popular vote, a candidate must appeal to the large majority of Americans who do not live in these urban centers of which Mr. Sheehan speaks. It would be politically foolhardy for a Presidential candidate to focus exclusively or even largely on urban centers.We see the ineffectiveness of this argument at the state level. In 2010, Texas Governor Rick Perry was re-elected by 13 percentage points, despite being overwhelmingly defeated in the state's two largest cities, Houston and Dallas. In fact, these two cities are two of the highest populated U.S. cities. Furthermore, George Pataki served three terms as Governor of New York, despite being wiped out in the nation's largest city, New York. Finally, California has elected four Governors in the last 46 years who did not come close to carrying the state's largest city, Los Angeles.Lastly, Mr. Sheehan advises that supporters of the National Popular Vote Plan "should submit this idea as a constitutional amendment, instead of exploiting a loophole in constitutional law and trying to affect voting change through state legislatures." Perhaps Mr. Sheehan does not realize that the National Popular Vote Plan in no way circumvents the U.S. Constitution. In fact, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution mandating that the President must be selected by a particular electoral method. Accordingly, there is absolutely no need for a Constitutional Amendment to change the method that states use for the awarding of electors. The Founding Fathers could not arrive at a resolution as to how to award electoral votes at the Constitutional Convention. Given this impasse, they decided to delegated "plenary authority" to the states to award their electors, as reflected in Article ll, Section 1, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." Accordingly, each state has autonomy to select electors in any way that it deems fit.In conclusion, the National Popular Vote Plan would give Rhode Island voters the seat at the electoral table that they are currently lacking. Rhode Island was the first state to declare independence from Britain. Under the National Popular Vote Plan, Presidential candidates will treat the Ocean State with the respect that it deserves.
Back in 1990, as Bob Miller, a country recording artist and bestselling author, pulled on to Highway 50 out of South Lake Tahoe, the snow had just begin to pile up and he assumed the road block ahead was to inform motorists that chains were required to get over the pass. Not in a million years would he have dreamed it had been set up to catch had gone to South Lake Tahoe to visit a Vietnam War buddy, and it was during this time that Miller gave one of his anti-Bush speeches… "I've heard all my life that you 'Can't powder a pig.' Nothing better describes what we Republicans have been trying to do for the last few years."When George Bush invaded Panama, I thought what on earth can I say to the American people so they will not forget every decent thing the Republican Party has ever done? What can I say when they find out that we got their sons and daughters killed, murdered over 200 hundred unarmed civilians who were not involved in the fighting or street disorders, destroyed countless homes and businesses we cannot afford to replace? Have spent over $150 million dollars we don't have just to satisfy a man's vendetta? Little did I know that he had just gotten started."With every newspaper in the country filled with the savings and loan scandal and Bush's popularity on the express elevator down, he drew a line in the sand.
The only ones on this earth who do no know we killed hundreds of our own people and again spent million we don't have for the sake of oil and a man's political future are ostriches. It is true that Bush does care about the people of Kuwait. He cares about them as he does the American people, in direct proportion to what they can do for him."Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not campaigning against a fellow Republican. Bush does not represent the Republican Party or any other party for that matter.
He represents George Bush."What Miller didn't know was that there was an attorney in attendance who was a personal friend of George H.W. Bush. Miller might have still gotten away with this speech, as he had done many times before, but thinking he was among friends, he added a few remarks that voided any protection under the First Amendment of the he failed to retract his words at this Secret Service roadblock, off he went to a lock-up ward at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Menlo Park, California. Had Miller not been a Vietnam War hero and a friend of a U.S. Senator, he most likely would have been carted off to Leavenworth. For those who might be interested in watching videos titled, Cowardly Blacks, and If Alabama Bridges Could Talk, simply go to YouTube or click on titles. A word of warning, even though Bob Miller is a registered Republican, his videos are not recommended for members of the Republican base or the followers of the late Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy or Jim Jones.
Just like interpreting, translation is a complex process. BThe fact that you can speak the language, does not mean you can translate something competently. There are several sectors in the world that had been lost in translation. Getting lost in translation can be potentially dangerous and may cause plenty of embarrassment.There are some instances that getting lost in translation pulled down the credibility and the good image of a political leader. Most often, being lost in translation about the politicians occurred during an election or a political campaign. Lines or speeches of politicians are often lost in translation. However, those speeches are hilarious and some are really incredibly embarrassing.One of the funny examples about politicians that were lost in translation was to do with French political leader Rachida Dati made a speech on the radio, but her speech was full of criticism.
Unfortunately, she seemed to be confused between oral sex and inflation and used the word fellatio instead of inflation. The former justice minister apologised on her facebook account right away after the hilarious incident.The Italian leader, Silvio Berlusconi lost his face when he presented a really embarrassing and funny translation about his ministries' biographies. The translation of the biographies was posted on a government website. However, Berlusconi described his spokesperson as a ''megaphone'', one of his ministries as a graduate of the University of ''Mouthfuls'', and a professor as a ''walnut''. In addition, he described his community policy minister as having ''graduated himself'', and through the help of Prof Augusto of the ''walnut''. Walnut is the literal translation of the name of their professor called Prof Augusto della Noce.In the United States, they have this concept for businesspeople and politician to determine first the culture and tradition of their clients to avoid uncomfortable scenes, critics and issues.
However, the Indonesian Information Minister found it awkward when the U.S first lady shook his hand. In Muslim tradition, men are prohibited from touching any woman, even if it is just shaking their hands, who are not family members. Moreover, the video was been criticized in Muslim countries especially because the minister was seen in the video, smiling sweetly upon shaking the hand of the U.S first lady. In addition, one U.S journalist posted something on the label of the video along the lines of ''the cutest political sex scandal ever?''I guess if you were one of the leaders in the scene, it would be awkward and not fun if you will hear some negative criticism, especially when they are making fun of you. However, this is usually the case in every politician that will be in the spotlight. Every people has their own taste, thus, they will criticize you in every way that they like.In addition, if this is so, why do you think the U.S first lady had not been briefed by any of their advisers or their Whitehouse interpreter not to offer her hand to be shaken by a Muslim man? For sure, the first lady did not go there by herself, she went there with an interpreter and advisors as well. Or maybe it's an example of how Americans just don't want to know other cultures.