When we talk of US war, we have to take two dimensions of it. The war itself and the stage later. US war on Iraq was based on the reason of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which couldn't be found. The heinous killing of thousands and torture to millions by Saddam Hussain and his sons is highly notorious. One has to punish them to death to retain humanity in this world. The ghastly incidents of killings shown in TV's in the early war days do show the barbaric nature of Saddam. If you can remember in one of the incident young boys in their placing bombs in their pockets with their mouth and hands tied killed twenties. In one of the evacuation process, some thousands of skeletons were found showing mass killings using mass of weapons of mass destruction. The war taking lives of Saddam Hussain sons is a great achievement and seizing of power from the dictator is quite appreciable.
The other dimension is the suffering that is still borne by the citizens. The war on Iraq could be won with little resistance was a known fact. The American power was on show during the war but killing of innocent civilians is not an acceptable fact. No one can justify the death of even one person for no reason or mistake of him. The plight of the civilians during the war is more pathetic with no security and basic amenities. Loyalists of Saddam created much furor in the region to make things just worse but the fall of Saddam was celebrated all over. The task of America then was to restore peace and rebuilt the nation with a constructive government and leaves the place as early as possible. Their return delayed and trouble mounted day by day to a situation, which is getting worse as days are passing by.
The only thing good from the war was the ousting of Saddam, but this could have been done without making such a big Hoopla out of it all. The way the war was carried out is totally unacceptable.
Saddam had to be ousted for he was an inhuman dictator. Everything he has done is totally heinous from the invasion of Kuwait to the genocides perpetrated against his people. This victory of US was celebrated everywhere, though his policies will be denounced forever.
But, the war raged by US was redundant, with unnecessary show of power. It is kind of a tradition for the American presidents to show off.
From the world war-2 till the present day. The main objective of the US, which is pretty much obvious, was to fulfill its desire of controlling the oil resources in the Middle East, as there is a very high demand of oil in both the US and the European countries. It was a mere exploitation of the helpless people of Iraq.
In my opinion the motive behind the war can also be collated with the 9/11.The whole scenario of 9/11 was very humiliating for the bush government. It had exposed major breach in the security and the failure on part of the government and the CIA. It had bruised the reputation of the country's very powerful history. To my knowledge that was the only such incident in the history of US where a terrorist group, and that did such great magnitude of damage ironically happened in bush's tenure. So to clear that humiliating blemish on him the Bush administration launched the war against Iraq in the disguise of war against terrorism, after it's unsuccessful operation in Afghanistan to capture bin. Hence the excess shows of power to remind the world of its supremacy.
So the war in Iraq is not justified and not at all at the cost of so many valuable human lives lost and the permanent damage done to the surviving desperate people who's lives have become even more pathetic after the war.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
SUPERCOMPUTER
SAN FRANCISCO: An American military supercomputer, assembled from components originally designed for video game machines, has reached a long-sought-after computing milestone by processing more than 1.026 quadrillion calculations per second.The new machine is more than twice as fast as the previous fastest supercomputer, the IBM BlueGene/L, which is based at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.The new $133 million supercomputer, called Roadrunner in a reference to the state bird of New Mexico, was devised and built by engineers and scientists at IBM and Los Alamos National Laboratory, based in Los Alamos, New Mexico. It will be used principally to solve classified military problems to ensure that the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons will continue to work correctly as they age. The Roadrunner will simulate the behavior of the weapons in the first fraction of a second during an explosion.Before it is placed in a classified environment, it will also be used to explore scientific problems like climate change. The greater speed of the Roadrunner will make it possible for scientists to test global climate models with higher accuracy.To put the performance of the machine in perspective, Thomas D'Agostino, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said that if all six billion people on earth used hand calculators and performed calculations 24 hours a day and seven days a week, it would take them 46 years to do what the Roadrunner can in one day.The machine is an unusual blend of chips used in consumer products and advanced parallel computing technologies. The lessons that computer scientists learn by making it calculate even faster are seen as essential to the future of both personal and mobile consumer computing.The high-performance computing goal, known as a petaflop — one thousand trillion calculations per second — has long been viewed as a crucial milestone by military, technical and scientific organizations in the United States, as well as a growing group including Japan, China and the European Union. All view supercomputing technology as a symbol of national economic competitiveness.
Islam and Terrorism: A Few Questions
In wake of Mumbai Terror Attacks, a lot of discussion has been happening on “Terrorism”. Most people today consider terrorism as a “Religious Problem”. A majority of people today thinks that only agenda of “Islam” as a religion is to preach violence and to carry out butchering. This kind of sentiments also get some fuel from the history of our sub-continent. We have had a dreadful past which starts from “mass conversion & killings” during “Mughal Invasion” but does not end at the “religious atrocities” during the partition days. It rather continues to haunt us in form of “Hindu-Muslim Riots” in the post-independence era.
The religion has been used in politics as a tool to unite & divide people. The kings during the non-democratic India, and Politicians in the democratic-India have over and again used religion as a tool to protect their misdeeds. Certain religious institutes & religious scholars have also colluded with them to mis-guide the people of their faiths. Even till date, religion is the most sensitive and contentious issue in India.
I read and watch a lot of debate about “Terror & Islam”. Many people believe that religious constitution of Islam is inherently violent and hence it is natural for any Muslim to be a terrorist. I am personally “not for” this argument. It is unlikely that Prophet Mohamed created a new sect, for its people to fight, kill and die. It is more likely that certain powers have hijacked a section of Islamic people (which forms a very small part of entire Islamic world) and they are using them as terrorists.
While discussing this issue on a public forum recently, I raised a few questions. I thought I will post them here too for the readers. I will request the readers to do some thinking over these questions.
(1) Indian has two Muslim dominated neighbors - Pakistan & Bangladesh. Why is that the ”inherent violence of Islam” is more evident in Pakistan but no so much in Bangladesh? Of course, there is some extent of violence in Bangladesh too, but such violence is there in non-Islamic countries too. Even in India we observe violence by non-Islamic groups. But I would like a comparison between the extent of organized terrorism in these two countries? Don’t you see a big difference? What makes the Pakistan & Bangladesh so different, despite their Islamic origins?
(2) Is it really true that the terrorism in Pakistan is funded (funded is the key word here) by Religious Powers? Though it is true that terrorism in Pakistan is being preached as some of the “Islamic Religious Schools”, but do these schools represent the true face of Islamic world? Pakistan’s economy is in shatters to be able to support its civilian base, but yet is is able to run its military programs. These military programs include development of inter-continental missiles, development of nuclear weapons, and running cost of maintaining CIA & Taliban Terrorist camps, in addition to its armed forces. If the Pakistan-born terrorism represents the true face of Islam, will not all the Muslim countries be eager to provide financially fundings to Pakistan and thus support the true spirit of their religion? But fact is that Pakistan is surviving based on funding from USA and USA backed IMF.
(3) Have we ever heard of any terrorist camps being run in Saudi Arabia? If terrorism was inherent in Islam, would we not be seeing most advanced terrorist training camps in Saudi Arabia, since it is the riches Islamic country in the world? But the fact is that (Islamic) terrorism is being preached in those parts of world, where poverty, unemployment & illeteracy is at its highest.
(4) Is USA a Muslim country? If it is not, why does it fund a Muslim country like Pakistan, whose only agenda is to preach “Islamic Terrorism”? Also, if world Muslim community is pro-terrorism, why they do not contribute to the international funding to Pakistan, in steps similar to what USA is doing.
(5) Is it not true that USA keeps funding the terrorist agenda in Pakistan and at the same time keeps carrying out a propaganda about “Islamic Terrorism” aimed at maligning the international Islamic community?
(6) We can find glimpses of “violence” in the Islamic Texts. But it is important to look at the circumstance amidst which the Islam was born. Was the Christian community at that time (800AD) as diplomatic and as peaceful as it has become today? Which was the religion to first invent the idea of Jihad? Were these not the Christian Crusader - who killed innocent people under religious umbrella? Did those crusader not enjoy the support of Church? Islam was a religion born to defend itself against a Crusading Religion, so it is only natural that its initial texts would have some thoughts and provisions about war & violence.
******
Today both the religions have come a far way forward. Christianity has become much more refined, and so has becomes Islam. It is wrong to implicate the founders of Islam as war mongers & terrorists.
America is too afraid of Arab countries wealth. These countries have become wealthy after the ”Oil-Boom” which started in 1970s. As the oil market has boomed, so had boomed the American Propaganda about ”Islamic Terror”. Before ”Islamic Terror”, American propaganda was about ”Communist Evil”. Once America succeeds in destroying the wealth of Arab Nations, their next propaganda will be against the next prosperous country.
The religion has been used in politics as a tool to unite & divide people. The kings during the non-democratic India, and Politicians in the democratic-India have over and again used religion as a tool to protect their misdeeds. Certain religious institutes & religious scholars have also colluded with them to mis-guide the people of their faiths. Even till date, religion is the most sensitive and contentious issue in India.
I read and watch a lot of debate about “Terror & Islam”. Many people believe that religious constitution of Islam is inherently violent and hence it is natural for any Muslim to be a terrorist. I am personally “not for” this argument. It is unlikely that Prophet Mohamed created a new sect, for its people to fight, kill and die. It is more likely that certain powers have hijacked a section of Islamic people (which forms a very small part of entire Islamic world) and they are using them as terrorists.
While discussing this issue on a public forum recently, I raised a few questions. I thought I will post them here too for the readers. I will request the readers to do some thinking over these questions.
(1) Indian has two Muslim dominated neighbors - Pakistan & Bangladesh. Why is that the ”inherent violence of Islam” is more evident in Pakistan but no so much in Bangladesh? Of course, there is some extent of violence in Bangladesh too, but such violence is there in non-Islamic countries too. Even in India we observe violence by non-Islamic groups. But I would like a comparison between the extent of organized terrorism in these two countries? Don’t you see a big difference? What makes the Pakistan & Bangladesh so different, despite their Islamic origins?
(2) Is it really true that the terrorism in Pakistan is funded (funded is the key word here) by Religious Powers? Though it is true that terrorism in Pakistan is being preached as some of the “Islamic Religious Schools”, but do these schools represent the true face of Islamic world? Pakistan’s economy is in shatters to be able to support its civilian base, but yet is is able to run its military programs. These military programs include development of inter-continental missiles, development of nuclear weapons, and running cost of maintaining CIA & Taliban Terrorist camps, in addition to its armed forces. If the Pakistan-born terrorism represents the true face of Islam, will not all the Muslim countries be eager to provide financially fundings to Pakistan and thus support the true spirit of their religion? But fact is that Pakistan is surviving based on funding from USA and USA backed IMF.
(3) Have we ever heard of any terrorist camps being run in Saudi Arabia? If terrorism was inherent in Islam, would we not be seeing most advanced terrorist training camps in Saudi Arabia, since it is the riches Islamic country in the world? But the fact is that (Islamic) terrorism is being preached in those parts of world, where poverty, unemployment & illeteracy is at its highest.
(4) Is USA a Muslim country? If it is not, why does it fund a Muslim country like Pakistan, whose only agenda is to preach “Islamic Terrorism”? Also, if world Muslim community is pro-terrorism, why they do not contribute to the international funding to Pakistan, in steps similar to what USA is doing.
(5) Is it not true that USA keeps funding the terrorist agenda in Pakistan and at the same time keeps carrying out a propaganda about “Islamic Terrorism” aimed at maligning the international Islamic community?
(6) We can find glimpses of “violence” in the Islamic Texts. But it is important to look at the circumstance amidst which the Islam was born. Was the Christian community at that time (800AD) as diplomatic and as peaceful as it has become today? Which was the religion to first invent the idea of Jihad? Were these not the Christian Crusader - who killed innocent people under religious umbrella? Did those crusader not enjoy the support of Church? Islam was a religion born to defend itself against a Crusading Religion, so it is only natural that its initial texts would have some thoughts and provisions about war & violence.
******
Today both the religions have come a far way forward. Christianity has become much more refined, and so has becomes Islam. It is wrong to implicate the founders of Islam as war mongers & terrorists.
America is too afraid of Arab countries wealth. These countries have become wealthy after the ”Oil-Boom” which started in 1970s. As the oil market has boomed, so had boomed the American Propaganda about ”Islamic Terror”. Before ”Islamic Terror”, American propaganda was about ”Communist Evil”. Once America succeeds in destroying the wealth of Arab Nations, their next propaganda will be against the next prosperous country.
Education n sucess- is dere any correlation?
Well the richest people don't have PHD's, just good ideas. So they are smart, and just because they don't have high degrees dosen't mean they don't have the knowlege. Bill Gates was smart enough to know that getting a higher degree or a degree would have cost him every thing he has today because the time to capitalize on the market was when he did, not another 3 years or so down the road.
To be sucessful you simply need to know enough about the industry you intend to enter, I suppose the more information or knowlege you have about it the more succesful you will be. If you want to start a software company it would require lots of technical knowlege. If you want to start a luxury resturant you need to know about luxury cuisine. You don't have to have a PHD for making a resturant menu but you may need some secrect family recipies. You could be very successful at either, but it just depends on how the market looks, and what you have the skills and desires for.
Theoretically, Success means 'Profitable Growth' which is higher than the average market growth rate. That means a successful person should be earning more money than most of the people are earning in his field. And/Or his Goodwill should be higher than the people in his field (his name itself should be a 'Brand') ... preferably in a good way.If you think that the people who are at good position, in a good company and earning good salary are successful then I think you are aiming really low. This is what is difference between people like us and people like Ambani and bill gates. Their aims are very higher than we can think of.. and this is the main formula for their success. For them even sky is not the limit.And, regarding your last question, even I have the same question "what businesses are we taking into consideration ?"If we are talking about all the businesses then everyone will agree that success and education are not related.If it is in field of sports - Sachin Tendulkar, Kapil dev, Steffi graph, Federer... i can take thousands of name... who cares about their education.. it is just their dedication and passion for what they do have made them successful.If it is field of entertainment - again i can take thousands of names .. and their education doesnt matter.. but still they are SUCCESSFUL.if it field of science (pure science) - take any scientist - einstien, edison, ramanujan.... they got their Phds only after their inventions became famous.. and it was not other way round. I dont think they were extraordinary or had some super-natural power that we dont have. Their main quality was perseverance - inspite of thousands of unsuccessful experiments, they still believed in what they were doing... even if world did not believe in them. Again i think this is the most essential ingredient for SUCCESS. NEVER QUIT.. if you truely believe in yourself.If it is field of Business - Jamsetji Tata, Dhirubhai Ambani, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs.. I can list many more .. they all were pioneer entrepreneurs.. They had vision.. they only want to be the BEST and nothing less than that. They never cared if they are less educated... but still they always have hunger for knowledge.i would like to share a video in which Steve job is giving commencement speech at stanford univ graduation ceremony 2005.He gave mantra for success as 'Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish'.You got to see it to understand this... very good.. very enlightening speech - YouTube - Steve Jobs Stanford Commencement Speech 2005 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA)After this you can decide, if education and success are related.
To be sucessful you simply need to know enough about the industry you intend to enter, I suppose the more information or knowlege you have about it the more succesful you will be. If you want to start a software company it would require lots of technical knowlege. If you want to start a luxury resturant you need to know about luxury cuisine. You don't have to have a PHD for making a resturant menu but you may need some secrect family recipies. You could be very successful at either, but it just depends on how the market looks, and what you have the skills and desires for.
Theoretically, Success means 'Profitable Growth' which is higher than the average market growth rate. That means a successful person should be earning more money than most of the people are earning in his field. And/Or his Goodwill should be higher than the people in his field (his name itself should be a 'Brand') ... preferably in a good way.If you think that the people who are at good position, in a good company and earning good salary are successful then I think you are aiming really low. This is what is difference between people like us and people like Ambani and bill gates. Their aims are very higher than we can think of.. and this is the main formula for their success. For them even sky is not the limit.And, regarding your last question, even I have the same question "what businesses are we taking into consideration ?"If we are talking about all the businesses then everyone will agree that success and education are not related.If it is in field of sports - Sachin Tendulkar, Kapil dev, Steffi graph, Federer... i can take thousands of name... who cares about their education.. it is just their dedication and passion for what they do have made them successful.If it is field of entertainment - again i can take thousands of names .. and their education doesnt matter.. but still they are SUCCESSFUL.if it field of science (pure science) - take any scientist - einstien, edison, ramanujan.... they got their Phds only after their inventions became famous.. and it was not other way round. I dont think they were extraordinary or had some super-natural power that we dont have. Their main quality was perseverance - inspite of thousands of unsuccessful experiments, they still believed in what they were doing... even if world did not believe in them. Again i think this is the most essential ingredient for SUCCESS. NEVER QUIT.. if you truely believe in yourself.If it is field of Business - Jamsetji Tata, Dhirubhai Ambani, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs.. I can list many more .. they all were pioneer entrepreneurs.. They had vision.. they only want to be the BEST and nothing less than that. They never cared if they are less educated... but still they always have hunger for knowledge.i would like to share a video in which Steve job is giving commencement speech at stanford univ graduation ceremony 2005.He gave mantra for success as 'Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish'.You got to see it to understand this... very good.. very enlightening speech - YouTube - Steve Jobs Stanford Commencement Speech 2005 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA)After this you can decide, if education and success are related.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)