So Where Does Bush Stand?

[Guest guest]

Vrn Parker So Where Does Bush Stand?VFA-members

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:48:28 -0800 (PST)

Namaste,

I would like to bring up some political points regarding G.W.Bush's administration.

TAIWAN and CHINA

KASHMIR/GUJARAT re:India

ISRAEL and PALESTINE

SOUTH KOREA and NORTH KOREA

MAOIST TERROR vs NEPAL

USA and UN/EU

 

I support Taiwan over China (Traditonal chinese culture over Maoism)

I support India/BJP in regards to Kasmir and Gujarat (Hindu's indigenous rights)

I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself against Palestinian

terrorism (Our people, the Jews, indigenous to the Middle East, have a right to

a Nation)

I support South Korea over North Korea (its obvious)

I support USA's right to self determination (without being obsfucated by the

Islamic dominated UN.)

 

President George W Bush supports all these causes, thus Taiwan is jubilant over his re-election.

 

Bush's govt clearly sided with India over Kashmir and publicly expressed

confidence in the BJP govt re:Gujarat

 

Sharon has declared Bush the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House

and the Jewish vote gave him Florida in 2004.

 

I have spent time in South Korea and it is has a vibrant traditional culture

that has become nearly extinct in North Korea. Bush is solidly prepared to

defend South Korea. The Christian missionary impact in South Korea is not

horrific compared to the Stalinist impact on NKorea.

 

Regarding Nepal and the USA, the Leader of the Maoist Terror groups has this to

say where he clearly highlights the UN/EU vs the USA:

Describing the latest move by the U.S. as "a conspiracy against calls by UN

Secretary General Kofi Annan, the European Union and other Western powers for

the Nepalese government and the Maoists to resume a peace dialogue," the

statement further went on to say that there were no immediate plans on resuming

peace talks. Late last month, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal said the time was

not right for negotiations because of the Nepalese government's growing

"militarisation". The State Department had announced last Friday that it had

designated the Maoists a threat to national security, a move, which freezes any

assets the rebels, may have in the United States or under U.S. jurisdiction.

Immediately after the announcement, the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu advised

American citizens to exercise special caution because of "the possibility of an

increased threat to Americans and American-affiliated organizations from Maoist

insurgents in the coming days."

So again, USA under Bush is on the right side.

 

As already stated I do not support UN/EU dominion over America. Bush does not either.

 

So unless you want to beleive in some vast conspiracy by Bush in which he is

merely pretending to support all these issues, it is obvious that Bush is on

the right side.

 

The UN is made up Nation states a majority of which are Islamic.

Thus the UN conference on Racism http://www.un.org/WCAR/

which took place days before 9/11

declares Israel a racist nation, USA as racist because of its support for

Israel, only mentions Hinduism in regards to the caste system and Dalits,

ignores India's Tribals in its lengthy discussion of Indigenous rights and

completely fails to mention the Kashmiri Pandit refugee crisis.

 

The UN is silent about the Maoist onslaught against Nepal, the only Hindu

kingdon in the World. (Why dont all these 'liberal lovers of diversity' have

any concern for maintaining such a unique Kingdom? Answer; The idea of a

surviving Vedic Kingdom is unacceptable to the powers behind the UN and it is

thus targetted for destruction.)

 

The UN only mildy encourages China to open discussions with the Dalai Lama

rather than demanding the Freedom of Tibet and their right of return as the UN

demands regarding Israel and Palestine. http://www.racism.org.za/index.html

http://www.adl.org/durban/durban_090401d.asp

 

This is the UN that 'liberals' like Clinton and Kerry want to submit to, the

'Global Test,' America, Israel and India must pass before acting. The allies

they say we should work with. The Organization we need permission from to

defend our interests.

 

I share the following articles.

First is by B Raman the former head of India's Intelligence Agency RAW and

current member of the National Security Advisory Board of the Government of

India

E-Mail: corde (AT) vsnl (DOT) com.

 

Second article is from The Progressive. its one of those wonderful 'liberal'

media outlets that are relentlessly anti-american, anti-israeli and anti-india,

specifically anti-Hindu. The author, Amitabh Pal, its managing editor, clearly

states that America should not befreind India because that would disturb

Pakistan and China and enthuse India's BJP/RSS. In the article he bemoans the

US govt's 'Ignoring the Hindu-led progroms against Muslims.' he is refering to

our 'buddies' under whose leadership we formed the VFA, ie the RSS. Unlike the

rest of the 'Progressive World,' Bush stood up for the RSS/BJP.

Its been suggested in recent messages that, we as Vedic followers are safer

under a 'liberal' US govt, but where is that 'liberality' when it comes to the

Kashmiri Pandits? No I completely disagree that we are safer under them. The

proof is in the complete disregard all these pseudo human rights groups and

liberal democrats have for Hindu victims and Jewish victims of Islamic

terrorism. When the BJP govt tried to create a common civil code, Clinton's

administration threatened India with sanctions, 'Unless it stopped its attempts

at religious persecution." And refering to doing research, I am sorry if I dont

take people like Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson as 'gospel.' I look at the

ground reality and inquire from high level people who have more information

then what is printed in the New York Times or on CNN.

 

Also a VFA member, good friend and vaishnava brother pointed out to me, that

when it was time for the Kuruksetra war, considerations such as the nobility of

Bhishma and Drona were irrelevent. It mattered on which side the combatant

stood. So like the head of the RSS, Sudarshanji, I am convinced that we are in

the midst of a modern day Kuruksetra. To me it appears that Bush is on the

right side.

Namaste and Shalom,

Vrndavan Parker

PS for the record I am a Ralph Nader supporter but as long as Bush is on the

side of India, Nepal, Israel and America, I am glad he won.

=================================================================

What will Bush II mean for India?B RamanNovember 04, 2004George Bush's victory

reflects certain ground realities in the US of today.

The first of these is the continuing concerns and anxieties in the minds of

large sections of people over the threat posed to the US, its nationals and

interests by international jihadi terrorism of the kind practised by

organisations such as Al Qaeda and the International Islamic Front.

With memories of 9/11 still haunting them they were not prepared to change their

president, in the midst of what Bush had projected as a relentless war against

international terrorism.

A strategic victory in the war is not yet in sight, but there were many tactical

victories to the credit of the Bush administration such as the capture or

killing of over half a dozen leading associates of Osama bin Laden.

In the election campaign, Bush had succeeded in having the spotlight focussed on

the achievements of his administration in the war than on its failures.

Senator John Kerry was unable to convincingly articulate and address the

concerns and anxieties of these people.

His projection of the war in Iraq as an unwise diversion from the war on

terrorism did not convince many people. His attempts to have the focus partly

shifted to bread and butter issues such as unemployment did not prove

beneficial either. Large sections of the electorate were prepared to overlook

the inadequacies of the Bush administration on the bread and butter front in

the interest of ensuring its success on the front of personal and national

security.

The second is the widespread conviction amongst the American people that Bush's

objectives in Iraq of having the Saddam Hussein regime overthrown and bringing

the country and its oil wealth under US control were correct though the means

followed such as the deliberate use of disinformation to justify the war etc

might have been wrong and though the sequel to the war in the form of bloody

resistance from the Iraqi people might have made the strategic objective of

making US control and influence acceptable to the Iraqi people elusive.

Kerry's ambivalence on the Iraq war, marked by his initial support for the

objective of overthrowing Saddam and subsequent criticism of the conduct of the

war, projected him in negative light.

The euphoria over the victory in the election is unlikely to last long as Bush

and his advisers continue to grapple with the Iraqi nettle and step up their

hunt for bin Laden and other dregs of the IIF.

A satisfactory end to the war in Iraq, which is now through its second year and

which has already cost nearly 1,100 American lives and resulted in the death of

thousands of Iraqi civilians, is nowhere in sight. The pronouncements of Bush

and his advisers during the election campaign did not give evidence of any new

thinking and new strategy.

The starting point of any new thinking and strategy is generally the realisation

that past thinking and strategy have failed to produce results and that a

mid-course correction is called for. No signs of any such realisation could be

detected during the election campaign.

The Bush administration seems to be under the belief that if somehow Falluja

could be pacified and the proposed election in Iraq could be held as scheduled

in January, that would mark the beginning of the end of its troubles in Iraq.

A lack of lucidity in the analysis of the ground situation in Iraq, marked by

ideological predilections, and an inability to re-fashion the policy response

to make amends for the past mistakes continue to stand in the way of a turn for

the better. The situation in Iraq continues to be dark and grim, but there are

flickers of light here and there.

One such glimmer of light is the fact that despite the ruthless massacre of

large numbers of Iraqi policemen and other civil servants by the suicide

bombers of foreign terrorists and indigenous resistance fighters, the

desertions from the newly-raised police and army have not been as high as

feared and there has been no significant drop in the number of volunteers for

joining the police and the army.

Those watching television images of the bloody scenes after each suicide car

bomb explosion would have been struck by the courage with which members of the

newly-trained Iraqi security forces perform their duties despite the threat

faced by them. These images show there are sections of the Iraqi civil society,

including many public servants, who do not side with the terrorists and the

resistance fighters despite their unhappiness with the US-led occupation.

The over-militarisation of the US responses to terrorism under Bush during his

first term, whether in Afghanistan or in Iraq, has resulted in very little

attention being paid to other dimensions, which are equally if not more

important. The most important of these dimensions is the psychological --

creating feelings of revulsion against terrorism and violence and encouraging

spells of introspection in the civil societies of not only Iraq, but also in

the rest of the Ummah over the brutalities of the terrorists in the name of

jihad and Islam.

The absence of any such introspection is partly due to perceptions of similar

brutalities in the military response of the US and in the methods followed by

Israel against the Palestinians. Without appropriate modifications in the

counter-terrorism methods followed by the US forces, the terrorist attacks,

even if directed against innocent civilians, will continue to be seen by large

sections of the Muslim masses as understandable acts of retaliation and not

with feelings of revulsion.

Killing of Muslims by Muslims in the name of Islam; beheading of innocent

civilians, including Muslims, by Muslims in the name of Islam; and killing of

innocent Iraqis by Muslims in the name of Iraq and Islam -- these are

nauseating elements of the jihadi terrorism of the kind practised by the likes

of bin Laden, Ayman-al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and others, which should

be troubling the minds of large sections of Muslims even in the Islamic world,

though they might be reluctant to give open expression to the prickings of

their conscience.

How to bring about a more assertive role by the right-minded sections of the

Islamic world? How can they be expected to be more assertive if, in their

perception, the US military is no less brutal as seen from air strikes in

civilian areas, excessive use of force through tanks and artillery in

heavily-inhabited areas etc?

The over-militarisation of the counter-terrorism campaign has been the bane of

the Bush leadership of the so-called war against terrorism since 9/11-- whether

in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere. Since the US is waging its counter-terrorism

campaign in foreign territory and not in its own territory, the restraints

normally dictated and imposed by counter-terrorism campaigns in one's own

territory such as non-use of the air force, the armour, the artillery and other

heavy weapons do not operate.

The harsh methods used by the US to match the harshness of the terrorists are

weakening whatever little influence the civil societies of these countries may

be able to exercise and adding to the number of volunteers joining the ranks of

the terrorists.

Unless these aspects of the policies followed by Bush and his advisers during

his first term are corrected and a new counter-terrorism strategy devised and

implemented, Bush's second term could turn out to be a re-run of his first.

This would not be in the interests of the US, its nationals and interests.

India watched the presidential race and the prospects of a Kerry win with

nervousness because of his pronouncements against outsourcing, his emphasis on

bread and butter issues which might have presaged a return to protectionism

etc. Memories of the past rigidities of the advisers around Kerry on the

nuclear issue and the ambivalent stance of the Clinton administration in its

first term on issues of concern to India such as Pakistani sponsorship of

terrorism against India, the Kashmir issue, technology transfers etc added to

the nervousness in India.

The only benign stance favourable to India, which the Clinton administration

adopted, was at the time of the Kargil conflict in 1999. Otherwise, it was

hardly ever helpful towards India.

It was Clinton, who, despite the strong advice of his counter-terrorism experts,

avoided declaring Pakistan as a State-sponsor of terrorism in 1993. It was Robin

Raphael, his assistant secretary of state, who, in October 1993, publicly

supported Pakistan's stand that Jammu and Kashmir is disputed territory.

Before joining the State Department, it was she, while posted in the US embassy

in New Delhi, who had instigated the Kashmiri militant leaders to form the

All-Parties Hurriyat Conference to wage a united struggle against the

Government of India.

Who can forget her role and that of Bill Richardson, Clinton's energy secretary,

in the birth and growth of the Taliban to promote the oil interests of Unocal,

the American company?

In 1995, it was Clinton, who, after Benazir Bhutto's visit to the US, engineered

the passage of the Brown Amendment by US Congress to facilitate the renewal of

the US arms supply relationship with Pakistan.

As against this, what has been the track record of successive Republican administrations?

After having initially courted the Khalistani terrorists after coming to office,

the Reagan adminstration ordered its intelligence agencies to cut off their

links with them after then prime minister Indira Gandhi's visit to Washington,

DC.

It was George H W Bush, the father of the present president, who invoked the

Pressler Amendment and terminated the military supply relationship with

Pakistan in 1990 because of its development of a clandestine military nuclear

capability. Bush Senior and James Baker, his secretary of state, took a tough

line against both China and Pakistan for China's clandestine missile supply

relationship with Pakistan.

If Bush Senior had returned to the White House in the 1992 election, it was most

likely that he would have accepted the advice of US counter-terrorism experts to

declare Pakistan a State-sponsor of international terrorism.

Clinton, to whom the file came in January 1993 for a decision, did not declare

Pakistan a State sponsor of terrorism. Instead, he kept Pakistan in a list of

suspected State-sponsors of terrorism and removed it after six months.

The attitude of the present Bush administration on the question of

Pakistan-supported jihadi terrorist groups operating against India has been

more helpful than that of the Clinton administration, though not as

satisfactory as one would have liked it to be. It designated the

Lashkar-e-Tayiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad as Foreign Terrorist Organisations

and took sympathetic note of India's complaints against the activities of the

transnational criminal mafia group led by Dawood Ibrahim from Pakistani

territory and declared him an international terrorist linked to Al Qaeda.

Despite these positive factors, India has had reasons to be concerned over some

aspects of the Bush administration's policies towards Pakistan. Among these,

one could mention its

lionisation of President General Pervez Musharraf as a stalwart ally in the war

against terrorism despite his failure to act against Pakistani jihadi terrorist

organisations operating against India and his complicity in keeping the Taliban

alive and active in sanctuaries in Pakistani territory;

its declaration of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally thereby according it

certain facilities in matters of military procurement; the US decision not to

act against Pakistan for the nuclear and missile proliferation activities of A

Q Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's atomic bomb; and the recent reports

of a possible re-consideration by the US of its past refusal to sell new

squadrons of F-16 planes to the Pakistan Air Force.

Bush, during his second term, is unlikely to address these concerns to India's satisfaction.

A question often asked in India is who would better promote Indian interests --

Bush or Kerry. That is an irrelevant question. The US electorate elects someone

as its president because it thinks he will better promote US interests and not

because of the interests of any other country. Anyone, who is elected

president, has the US national interests foremost in his mind while formulating

his policies. Indian interests will receive attention only if they are

compatible with US national interests.

The purpose of any exercise in relation to Indo-US relations should, therefore,

be to identify Indian interests, which are compatible with US interests, and

work for a convergence of views and policy-making and implementation with

regard to them.

Three such issues can be immediately identified:

the campaign against jihadi terrorism;

the importance of the restoration of normalcy in Iraq and the prevention of its

balkanisation and pulling it out of the throes of fundamentalism and jihadi

terrorism into which US policies have pushed it;

and facilitating India's catching up with China as an economic power of equal

strength for which India would need a large flow of US investments and

technology.

Till the US wins its war against jihadi terrorism -- if it is able to win it at

all -- its national interests would demand close strategic and military

relations with Pakistan.

While India should work towards closer relations with the US, Washington is

unlikely to let such relations be at the expense of its

counter-terrorism-related relationship with Pakistan.

Unless and until the US realises that Pakistan has been playing a double game in

the so-called war against terrorism, there is unlikely to be any change in its

policies towards Islamabad.

================================================================BUSH IGNORES INDIA'S POGROM

Progressive, The, July, 2003 by Amitabh Pal

link to complete article at end of quote

"The United States has been, at best, equivocal in its response to the Gujarat

anti-Muslim campaign. And it has been half-hearted in trying to stem the flow

of funds from the United States to Hindu extremist groups in India.

The BJP's militant, hard-line attitude apparently does not trouble the Bush

Administration, which has drawn closer since September 11 to the Indian

government (even while maintaining an alliance with the BJP'S bugbear, General

Pervez Musharraf's regime in Pakistan). The BJP has used the post-September 11

climate as a cover for harsh internal measures, such as passing stiff

anti-terrorism laws and, as Gujarat shows, targeting Muslims. The Indian

government has reciprocated U.S. friendship by strongly supporting the Bush

Administration's campaign in Afghanistan and by being reticent about the Iraq

War.

According to The New York Times, the only public remarks about Gujarat that the

U.S. ambassador, Robert Blackwill, made in the aftermath of the violence was:

"All our hearts go out to the people who were affected by this tragedy. I don't

have anything more to say than that." In contrast, after terrorists killed

twenty-four Kashmiris in late March this year, Blackwill was quick to issue a

statement condemning "the ghastly murder of innocent men, women, and children."

Blackwill did not even visit Gujarat subsequent to the pogrom.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was asked by The Hindu, a leading

national paper, about "why the United States has not been forthcoming in its

criticism." She responded that the BJP "government is leading India well, and

it will do the right thing."

Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca did term

the events in Gujarat "really horrible," but she neglected to assign any blame.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell visited India last July, he made no mention

of Gujarat, as Mira Kamdar pointed out in World Policy Journal. The furthest

that the Bush Administration went was to raise the matter privately with the

Indian government, warning that it was harming India's image, according to the

Bombay-based Economic Times. By contrast, the European Union likened the

Gujarat situation to apartheid and said that it had similarities with Nazi

Germany of the 1930s.

Apparently, the U.S. government has deemed it more important to keep India on

its side in the "war on terrorism" than to risk a row over even grotesque human

rights violations."

Amitabh Pal is the editor of the Progressive Media Project in Madison, Wis. He

can be reached at pmproj (AT) progressive (DOT) org

SOURCE: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_7_67/ai_105163833

Check out the new Front Page. www.

Check out the new Front Page. www.