North Korea is upping the ante as it threatens USA with nuclear
attacks. I do not think any sensible nation will actually want to attack
the US since it is the ticket ensured annihilation and this is true in
spite of the economic frailties in US right now. But there could be a
smart strategy behind it- the threat to Japan and South Korea might be
real, but all North Korea does is to remind of a really hungry or
frustrated child seeking attention from the family elders or the
class-teacher (another comparison is a drunk, heart-broken lover who is
threatening suicide/murder if the girl doesn't reciprocate his love).
They are in desperate need of food and medical supplies and the only way
the world will take not of it is by brandishing its only weapon. By negotiating from a position of (imaginary) strength,
the new military ruler and the government can save its face infront of
the world and its people who have only their nuclear strength as a
matter of pride when compared to an economically prosperous southern
neighbour.
Consider the alternate or rather, consider what is happening with Iran- sanctions upon sanctions, denial of opportunities to trade with other nations and naval exercises in its backyard. Iran has always said it's intentions are peaceful and nuclear research is for medical and electricity needs only. Maybe Iran needs to come out and say we are pursuing nuclear weapons, we will stop if you (whoever is trying to impose sanctions) accept some of our un-reasonable demands and then enter into negotiations to get reasonable concessions.
I have read quite a few articles which said Pakistan missed an opportunity when the public sentiment against Taliban hit a peak after the Malala Yusufzai incident, that they failed to organise a military operation and try to end the threat from Taliban. It was atleast an opportunity to drop the myth or the organised misconception that there is a good Taliban and a bad Taliban. It was an incident that shocked us, the imagery too obvious and heart rending for someone even far far away from such incidents- an innocent girl, fighting for her and her country's women by going to school. A bunch of violent men shoots her at the school- a threat to every other woman trying to be independent in that nation.
I am not going to explain how quickly the incident was turned as a conspiracy by the US to push Pakistan into a military strike against the Taliban. It was dumped as a conspiracy theory and so girls will continue to live under threat from Taliban, a nation is still the hostage of a radical, sacrilegious and violent gang of thugs and these thugs are used by its neighbour as bargaining chips and for influence in the region. The same thing happened in the US too, but there, it has been happening for decades- the battle against gun control.
The US shooting incidents- It is obvious guns killed the students in the school, devotees at the gurudwara and movie-goers at Colorado. But the argument that it is not guns, but people that kill people have been widely used. They also say there are thousands of road accidents and yet we allow people to drive. Apart from the fact that we cannot outlaw people and prevent them from getting angry, the common sense logic that it would be prudent to keep them away from guns when they are angry is not accepted. And unlike cars, guns are MEANT to kill and they kill on purpose, not by accident. So, it is easier (they are cheaper than a car too btw) in the US to buy a device that kills people than to drive a car- it requires a license and a car.
Another argument is that guns are necessary to protect oneself against attacks and others holding guns. The point that is skipped here is that more and more individuals are forced to hold guns for safety since a few people hold them. So confiscate these guns too, but no, let us put more guns into the hands of people rather than removing these dangerous weapons. I also have a doubt, I think only Permanent Residents are allowed to carry guns. Perhaps expats, migrants and foreign students in the US do not need protection. But inspite of these incidents and the obviousness of the need to control gun proliferation (rather, to prevent flooding of streets with guns), I hear that a petition has been filed to the White House website to deport Piers Morgan who expressed views in contravention to the US second amendment. Perhaps they skipped the US first amendment? (For more on this, read a ) I would like to know how US citizens who believe in gun control will be treated.
Consider the alternate or rather, consider what is happening with Iran- sanctions upon sanctions, denial of opportunities to trade with other nations and naval exercises in its backyard. Iran has always said it's intentions are peaceful and nuclear research is for medical and electricity needs only. Maybe Iran needs to come out and say we are pursuing nuclear weapons, we will stop if you (whoever is trying to impose sanctions) accept some of our un-reasonable demands and then enter into negotiations to get reasonable concessions.
I have read quite a few articles which said Pakistan missed an opportunity when the public sentiment against Taliban hit a peak after the Malala Yusufzai incident, that they failed to organise a military operation and try to end the threat from Taliban. It was atleast an opportunity to drop the myth or the organised misconception that there is a good Taliban and a bad Taliban. It was an incident that shocked us, the imagery too obvious and heart rending for someone even far far away from such incidents- an innocent girl, fighting for her and her country's women by going to school. A bunch of violent men shoots her at the school- a threat to every other woman trying to be independent in that nation.
I am not going to explain how quickly the incident was turned as a conspiracy by the US to push Pakistan into a military strike against the Taliban. It was dumped as a conspiracy theory and so girls will continue to live under threat from Taliban, a nation is still the hostage of a radical, sacrilegious and violent gang of thugs and these thugs are used by its neighbour as bargaining chips and for influence in the region. The same thing happened in the US too, but there, it has been happening for decades- the battle against gun control.
The US shooting incidents- It is obvious guns killed the students in the school, devotees at the gurudwara and movie-goers at Colorado. But the argument that it is not guns, but people that kill people have been widely used. They also say there are thousands of road accidents and yet we allow people to drive. Apart from the fact that we cannot outlaw people and prevent them from getting angry, the common sense logic that it would be prudent to keep them away from guns when they are angry is not accepted. And unlike cars, guns are MEANT to kill and they kill on purpose, not by accident. So, it is easier (they are cheaper than a car too btw) in the US to buy a device that kills people than to drive a car- it requires a license and a car.
Another argument is that guns are necessary to protect oneself against attacks and others holding guns. The point that is skipped here is that more and more individuals are forced to hold guns for safety since a few people hold them. So confiscate these guns too, but no, let us put more guns into the hands of people rather than removing these dangerous weapons. I also have a doubt, I think only Permanent Residents are allowed to carry guns. Perhaps expats, migrants and foreign students in the US do not need protection. But inspite of these incidents and the obviousness of the need to control gun proliferation (rather, to prevent flooding of streets with guns), I hear that a petition has been filed to the White House website to deport Piers Morgan who expressed views in contravention to the US second amendment. Perhaps they skipped the US first amendment? (For more on this, read a ) I would like to know how US citizens who believe in gun control will be treated.
No comments:
Post a Comment