Actually the best strategy will be to build up troops in Kandahar, completely in secrecy. Afghan govt can help India if India plays some deft diplomatic moves. Then hit Quetta by launching an attack from Kandahar. Pakistanis won't even know what hit them. They will be waiting for attack to come from their eastern border.
Like this thread. I'm no defence strategist either but its good to read this.
Like this thread. I'm no defence strategist either but its good to read this.
wallpaper Tightwad Personal Budget
Your leverage is $270,000 in this investment, and you pay 5% interest on it which is tax deductible. You don't suppose one can borrow 270Gs to invest in, per my example, S&P 500 to get 10% annually? Of course the you are able to borrow that much on a home is because it is considered relatively a safe debt for the lender. That can't be said for stocks.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
>> But going with the spirit of my original post, in the long run, the equity you build (15K/yr) will far out weigh the yearly savings you get by renting.
You are right in 90% of cases - where people will otherwise spend the money and not save it.
If you have a mortgage - you are "forced" to save because the monthly amortization automatically builds equity. If you are renting - you are not "forced" to save that amount - and hence would probably be spent (in my case) in a gaming machine with I7 processor (which has NO long term value).
However, in the hypothetical 10% scenario (in case of immigrants, specially Indians, my gut feel is that it is significantly more than 10%) - where the amount is saved in some sort of investment vehicle instead of being frittered away - you would come out ahead in the long term.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
>> But going with the spirit of my original post, in the long run, the equity you build (15K/yr) will far out weigh the yearly savings you get by renting.
You are right in 90% of cases - where people will otherwise spend the money and not save it.
If you have a mortgage - you are "forced" to save because the monthly amortization automatically builds equity. If you are renting - you are not "forced" to save that amount - and hence would probably be spent (in my case) in a gaming machine with I7 processor (which has NO long term value).
However, in the hypothetical 10% scenario (in case of immigrants, specially Indians, my gut feel is that it is significantly more than 10%) - where the amount is saved in some sort of investment vehicle instead of being frittered away - you would come out ahead in the long term.
When I was a kid I lived in a very small house (flat) with my parents. Now I look back & realize that was the happiest time of my life. We didnt have much money. My parents gave me lot of time & love. For a kid what matters the most is the love he recives from his parents.
Agreed, but then you have no way of knowing if you would have been less happier growing up in a bigger home. For all you know, you may have been more happier.
I think personally we shouldn't make a statement "Our kids will have better lives in a house".
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
Agreed, but then you have no way of knowing if you would have been less happier growing up in a bigger home. For all you know, you may have been more happier.
I think personally we shouldn't make a statement "Our kids will have better lives in a house".
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
2011 personal budget software.
This is the simple logic everybody tried to convey to Refugee_now in 15 pages of this thread. But he don't understand or don't want to !!!!
so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11?
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11?
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
I also think the media could have acted more responsibly than it did. I was somewhat disappointed by Pakistani media. I think there was too much bias and not so much objectivity in the coverage. I am afraid the Indian media would have acted in a similar manner too....
You haven't yet denounced the Bombay attacks but you are quick to attack Indian media. Good job, you have been trained well. Indian media is at fault in showing the carnage but the terrorist who carried out the carnage are saints???
Its funny to see your assertion that its ok if 200 die in a bomb blast. It maybe ok for Pakistanis, but it is not ok for Indians. Stop calling Indian media as "bias". There was no ambiguity in the coverage. It was direct telecast. Why blame the media to educate the larger population that what's going on. Let me guess, terrorist do not like freedom of speech. You need to stop watching that garbage in Pakistani TV channels.
You haven't yet denounced the Bombay attacks but you are quick to attack Indian media. Good job, you have been trained well. Indian media is at fault in showing the carnage but the terrorist who carried out the carnage are saints???
Its funny to see your assertion that its ok if 200 die in a bomb blast. It maybe ok for Pakistanis, but it is not ok for Indians. Stop calling Indian media as "bias". There was no ambiguity in the coverage. It was direct telecast. Why blame the media to educate the larger population that what's going on. Let me guess, terrorist do not like freedom of speech. You need to stop watching that garbage in Pakistani TV channels.
Ss it really "Rent Apartment vs Buy House" ?
How about renting a home to provide something good to your family?
With the home values declining I think it makes way more sense to rent the same house (at least in the area I live). If your mortgage payment is only $500 above apartment rent I would say buy. But if you are looking at paying double as mortgage I think its really inflated.
I would like to read more about buying foreclosed properties. I hear there are some good deals out there :D
When you sell, you need to pay 3% as commission to both the seller and buyer agent. You will break even as soon as the house appreciates 6% plus your closing costs, anything above that would be your profit.
Now with the market going down, my guess as to when the house appreciates is as good as anybody else�s.
As far as Rent vs Mortgage goes, I would go with owning a house and paying mortgage than being on rent, I just cannot live in an apartment anymore. Caring for aging parents is our duty and responsibility as much as providing a decent home to our children and giving them a life. If I can strike a balance and fulfill my duties to both, I am happy. Coming to think of it, sometimes I wonder why I did not buy the small house I am in a couple of years ago.
How about renting a home to provide something good to your family?
With the home values declining I think it makes way more sense to rent the same house (at least in the area I live). If your mortgage payment is only $500 above apartment rent I would say buy. But if you are looking at paying double as mortgage I think its really inflated.
I would like to read more about buying foreclosed properties. I hear there are some good deals out there :D
When you sell, you need to pay 3% as commission to both the seller and buyer agent. You will break even as soon as the house appreciates 6% plus your closing costs, anything above that would be your profit.
Now with the market going down, my guess as to when the house appreciates is as good as anybody else�s.
As far as Rent vs Mortgage goes, I would go with owning a house and paying mortgage than being on rent, I just cannot live in an apartment anymore. Caring for aging parents is our duty and responsibility as much as providing a decent home to our children and giving them a life. If I can strike a balance and fulfill my duties to both, I am happy. Coming to think of it, sometimes I wonder why I did not buy the small house I am in a couple of years ago.
I agree with you ..Antulay is complete filth.
But you are just another attention seeker wasting my money by using up the storage space in this forum. Let me predict what you are going to do ... half the posts on this thread will be yours ..mostly picking up a piss contest with anyone posting here. Below is a link to a constructive channel many have used. See you there..
http://indianarmy.nic.in/career.html
This is exactly I hate. To divert focus of terrorism to Hindu group, Muslim leader comes out - WOW!
Sounds like LeT informed Hindu group in advance that they are going to attack so as a by-product they can kill Karkare. Ha ha ha.
Times Of India Headline: Antulay raises doubts over Karkare's killing
But you are just another attention seeker wasting my money by using up the storage space in this forum. Let me predict what you are going to do ... half the posts on this thread will be yours ..mostly picking up a piss contest with anyone posting here. Below is a link to a constructive channel many have used. See you there..
http://indianarmy.nic.in/career.html
This is exactly I hate. To divert focus of terrorism to Hindu group, Muslim leader comes out - WOW!
Sounds like LeT informed Hindu group in advance that they are going to attack so as a by-product they can kill Karkare. Ha ha ha.
Times Of India Headline: Antulay raises doubts over Karkare's killing
2010 Free Personal Finance Software
Dude, I have donated over $ 1000 to IV so far, and participated in every campaign, and made enough calls to give me blisters, all without seeking attention or green dots. Next please?
That's great to know.
So, what exactly bothering you, friend? I know you don't like this thread but it shouldn't stop you from pursuing what you are doing, right? This is just a thread, it can be closed anytime and I think it will be closed very soon. I know you don't care about publicity and you care about the green card not just for you but also for others. In any case, believe me, any amount of red-green dots/publicity on IV/bad reputation on IV, will not make a dime worth of difference to the green cards.
Don't let such things bother you, when you have already contributed a lot towards the IV cause.
Btw, green to you. I know you don't care but I think you deserve it more than anybody else.
That's great to know.
So, what exactly bothering you, friend? I know you don't like this thread but it shouldn't stop you from pursuing what you are doing, right? This is just a thread, it can be closed anytime and I think it will be closed very soon. I know you don't care about publicity and you care about the green card not just for you but also for others. In any case, believe me, any amount of red-green dots/publicity on IV/bad reputation on IV, will not make a dime worth of difference to the green cards.
Don't let such things bother you, when you have already contributed a lot towards the IV cause.
Btw, green to you. I know you don't care but I think you deserve it more than anybody else.
Troubling China-India ties (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101229bc.html) By Brahma Chellaney | Japan Times
The already fraught China-India relationship appears headed for more turbulent times as a result of the two giants' failure to make progress on resolving any of the issues that divide them. Earlier this month, during the first visit in more than four years of a Chinese leader to India, the two sides decided to kick all contentious issues down the road. Instead, Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to expand bilateral trade by two-thirds over the next five years.
But the trade relationship is anything but flattering for India, which is largely exporting primary commodities to China and importing finished products, as if it were the raw-material appendage of a neocolonial Chinese economy. To make matters worse, India confronts a ballooning trade deficit with China and the dumping of Chinese goods that is systematically killing local manufacturing.
The focus on trade even as political disputes fester only plays into the Chinese agenda to gain bigger commercial benefits in India while being free to inflict greater strategic wounds on that country.
India-China relations have entered a particularly frosty spell, with New Delhi's warming relationship with Washington emboldening Beijing to up the ante through border provocations, resurrection of its long-dormant claim to the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and diplomatic needling. After initially seeking greater cooperation to help dissuade New Delhi from moving closer to the U.S., Beijing shifted to a more-coercive approach following the mid-2005 U.S.-India defense framework agreement and nuclear deal.
Last year relations sank to their lowest political point in more than two decades when Beijing unleashed a psychological war, employing its state-run media and nationalistic Web sites to warn of another armed conflict. The coarse rhetoric of the period leading up to the 1962 Chinese military attack also returned, with the Chinese Communist Party's broadsheet, People's Daily, for example, berating India for "recklessness and arrogance" and asking it to weigh "the consequences of a potential confrontation with China."
Since then, Beijing has picked territorial fights with other neighbors as well, kindling fears of an expansionist China across Asia.
The only area where India-China relations have thrived is commerce. But the rapidly growing trade, far from helping to turn the page on old rifts, has been accompanied by greater Sino-Indian geopolitical rivalry and military tensions, resulting in India beefing up defenses. Tibet remains at the core of the Sino-Indian divide. While Chinese damming of international rivers has helped link water with land disputes, the 30-year-long negotiations to settle territorial feuds have hit a wall and gone off on a tangent.
Little surprise a 20-fold increase in trade in the past decade to $60 billion has yielded a more muscular Chinese policy. In fact, the more China's trade surplus with India has swelled � jumping from $2 billion in 2002 to almost $20 billion this year � the greater has been its condescension toward India.
Trade in today's market-driven world is not constrained by political disputes or even strained ties, unless artificial political barriers have been erected, such as through sanctions. The China-India relations actually demonstrate that booming trade is no guarantee of moderation or restraint between states. Unless estranged neighbors fix their political relations, economics alone will not be enough to create good will or stabilize their relationship.
Yet ignoring that lesson, China and India have left their political rows to future diplomacy to clear up, with Wen bluntly stating that sorting out the border disputes "will take a fairly long period of time." On the eve of his visit, Zhang Yan, the Chinese ambassador to India, publicly acknowledged that, "China-India relations are very fragile and very easy to be damaged and very difficult to repair."
Even as old rifts remain, new issues are roiling relations, including Chinese strategic projects and military presence in Pakistani-held Kashmir and a new policy by China (which occupies one-fifth of the original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir) to depict the Indian-administered portion of that state as de facto independent. It thus has been issuing visas to residents there on a separate leaf, not on their Indian passport. It also has stopped counting its 1,600-km border with Indian Kashmir as part of the frontier it shares with India.
In less than five years, China has gone from reviving the Arunachal Pradesh card to honing the Kashmir card against India. Thanks to China's growing strategic footprint in Pakistani-held Kashmir, India now faces Chinese troops on both flanks of its portion of Kashmir. Indeed, the deepening China-Pakistan nexus presents India with a two-front theater in the event of a war with either country.
China is unwilling to accept the territorial status quo, or enter into a river waters-sharing treaty as India has done with downriver Bangladesh and Pakistan. Yet it wants to focus relations increasingly on commerce, even pushing for a free-trade agreement. With the Western and Japanese markets racked by economic troubles, the Chinese export juggernaut needs a larger market share in India, the world's second fastest-growing economy.
But the current lopsided trade pattern � presenting a rising India as an African-style raw material source � is just not sustainable. China's proven iron-ore deposits, according to various international estimates, are more than 2 1/2 times that of India. Yet China is conserving its own reserves and importing iron ore in a major way from India, to which, in return, it exports value-added steel products. As India ramps up its own steel-producing capacity over the next five years, China will have dwindling access to Indian iron ore.
At present, China maintains nontrade barriers and other mechanisms that keep out higher-value Indian exports, such as information technology and pharmaceutical products; it exports to India double of what it imports in value; it continues to blithely undercut Indian manufacturing despite a record number of antidumping cases against it by India in the World Trade Organization; and its foreign direct investment in India is so minuscule ($52 million in the past decade) as to be undetectable. Such ties amount to lose-lose for India and win-win for China.
As if to underline that such unequal commerce cannot override political concerns, India has refused to reaffirm its support for Beijing's sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan. India had been periodically renewing its commitment to a "one China" policy, even as Beijing not only declined to make a reciprocal one-India pledge. But in a sign of the growing strains in ties, Wen left for his country's "all-weather" ally, Pakistan, with a joint communique in which India's one-China commitment was conspicuously missing.
Growing Chinese provocations have left New Delhi with little choice but to play hardball with Beijing.
Brahma Chellaney is the author of "Asian Juggernaut" (HarperCollins USA, 2010).
The already fraught China-India relationship appears headed for more turbulent times as a result of the two giants' failure to make progress on resolving any of the issues that divide them. Earlier this month, during the first visit in more than four years of a Chinese leader to India, the two sides decided to kick all contentious issues down the road. Instead, Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to expand bilateral trade by two-thirds over the next five years.
But the trade relationship is anything but flattering for India, which is largely exporting primary commodities to China and importing finished products, as if it were the raw-material appendage of a neocolonial Chinese economy. To make matters worse, India confronts a ballooning trade deficit with China and the dumping of Chinese goods that is systematically killing local manufacturing.
The focus on trade even as political disputes fester only plays into the Chinese agenda to gain bigger commercial benefits in India while being free to inflict greater strategic wounds on that country.
India-China relations have entered a particularly frosty spell, with New Delhi's warming relationship with Washington emboldening Beijing to up the ante through border provocations, resurrection of its long-dormant claim to the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and diplomatic needling. After initially seeking greater cooperation to help dissuade New Delhi from moving closer to the U.S., Beijing shifted to a more-coercive approach following the mid-2005 U.S.-India defense framework agreement and nuclear deal.
Last year relations sank to their lowest political point in more than two decades when Beijing unleashed a psychological war, employing its state-run media and nationalistic Web sites to warn of another armed conflict. The coarse rhetoric of the period leading up to the 1962 Chinese military attack also returned, with the Chinese Communist Party's broadsheet, People's Daily, for example, berating India for "recklessness and arrogance" and asking it to weigh "the consequences of a potential confrontation with China."
Since then, Beijing has picked territorial fights with other neighbors as well, kindling fears of an expansionist China across Asia.
The only area where India-China relations have thrived is commerce. But the rapidly growing trade, far from helping to turn the page on old rifts, has been accompanied by greater Sino-Indian geopolitical rivalry and military tensions, resulting in India beefing up defenses. Tibet remains at the core of the Sino-Indian divide. While Chinese damming of international rivers has helped link water with land disputes, the 30-year-long negotiations to settle territorial feuds have hit a wall and gone off on a tangent.
Little surprise a 20-fold increase in trade in the past decade to $60 billion has yielded a more muscular Chinese policy. In fact, the more China's trade surplus with India has swelled � jumping from $2 billion in 2002 to almost $20 billion this year � the greater has been its condescension toward India.
Trade in today's market-driven world is not constrained by political disputes or even strained ties, unless artificial political barriers have been erected, such as through sanctions. The China-India relations actually demonstrate that booming trade is no guarantee of moderation or restraint between states. Unless estranged neighbors fix their political relations, economics alone will not be enough to create good will or stabilize their relationship.
Yet ignoring that lesson, China and India have left their political rows to future diplomacy to clear up, with Wen bluntly stating that sorting out the border disputes "will take a fairly long period of time." On the eve of his visit, Zhang Yan, the Chinese ambassador to India, publicly acknowledged that, "China-India relations are very fragile and very easy to be damaged and very difficult to repair."
Even as old rifts remain, new issues are roiling relations, including Chinese strategic projects and military presence in Pakistani-held Kashmir and a new policy by China (which occupies one-fifth of the original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir) to depict the Indian-administered portion of that state as de facto independent. It thus has been issuing visas to residents there on a separate leaf, not on their Indian passport. It also has stopped counting its 1,600-km border with Indian Kashmir as part of the frontier it shares with India.
In less than five years, China has gone from reviving the Arunachal Pradesh card to honing the Kashmir card against India. Thanks to China's growing strategic footprint in Pakistani-held Kashmir, India now faces Chinese troops on both flanks of its portion of Kashmir. Indeed, the deepening China-Pakistan nexus presents India with a two-front theater in the event of a war with either country.
China is unwilling to accept the territorial status quo, or enter into a river waters-sharing treaty as India has done with downriver Bangladesh and Pakistan. Yet it wants to focus relations increasingly on commerce, even pushing for a free-trade agreement. With the Western and Japanese markets racked by economic troubles, the Chinese export juggernaut needs a larger market share in India, the world's second fastest-growing economy.
But the current lopsided trade pattern � presenting a rising India as an African-style raw material source � is just not sustainable. China's proven iron-ore deposits, according to various international estimates, are more than 2 1/2 times that of India. Yet China is conserving its own reserves and importing iron ore in a major way from India, to which, in return, it exports value-added steel products. As India ramps up its own steel-producing capacity over the next five years, China will have dwindling access to Indian iron ore.
At present, China maintains nontrade barriers and other mechanisms that keep out higher-value Indian exports, such as information technology and pharmaceutical products; it exports to India double of what it imports in value; it continues to blithely undercut Indian manufacturing despite a record number of antidumping cases against it by India in the World Trade Organization; and its foreign direct investment in India is so minuscule ($52 million in the past decade) as to be undetectable. Such ties amount to lose-lose for India and win-win for China.
As if to underline that such unequal commerce cannot override political concerns, India has refused to reaffirm its support for Beijing's sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan. India had been periodically renewing its commitment to a "one China" policy, even as Beijing not only declined to make a reciprocal one-India pledge. But in a sign of the growing strains in ties, Wen left for his country's "all-weather" ally, Pakistan, with a joint communique in which India's one-China commitment was conspicuously missing.
Growing Chinese provocations have left New Delhi with little choice but to play hardball with Beijing.
Brahma Chellaney is the author of "Asian Juggernaut" (HarperCollins USA, 2010).
hair personal budgeting program
Lobbying Expands in a Lean Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201749_2.html)
Election years are often fallow for lobbyists, because the interests that employ them tend to take a wait-and-see approach. Yet total spending on federal lobbying last year managed to zoom up to $2.6 billion, a nearly 11 percent increase from $2.4 billion in 2005, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.
The biggest-spending sector was finance, insurance and real estate, with $353.9 million, followed by health, with $337.7 million, new data from the Center for Responsive Politics show. Organized-labor lobbying was near the bottom, with $29 million in federal expenditures last year.
Spending by registered lobbyists has risen steadily year over year. And lobbyists expect another bumper season this year in the wake of the Democratic takeover of Congress. Change breeds uncertainty, they say, and uncertainty inevitably brings extra lobbying fees.
Election years are often fallow for lobbyists, because the interests that employ them tend to take a wait-and-see approach. Yet total spending on federal lobbying last year managed to zoom up to $2.6 billion, a nearly 11 percent increase from $2.4 billion in 2005, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.
The biggest-spending sector was finance, insurance and real estate, with $353.9 million, followed by health, with $337.7 million, new data from the Center for Responsive Politics show. Organized-labor lobbying was near the bottom, with $29 million in federal expenditures last year.
Spending by registered lobbyists has risen steadily year over year. And lobbyists expect another bumper season this year in the wake of the Democratic takeover of Congress. Change breeds uncertainty, they say, and uncertainty inevitably brings extra lobbying fees.
see below
Then check. Context is everything sometimes.
I checked, everything I said before, I stand by it.
There was no point, I said I did not believe it. I was showing the original poster that using a large black brush to tar a whole group of people is offensive and inappropriate. At least read my whole post before responding. I see I hit a nerve though. So it's ok for you t claim that EB2 means nothing and is ill gotten but not ok for me to talk about EB3?
So, I used your black brush to paint over your argument to the argument you claim to resolve. You should expect that, when you try to sling mud on others, you should be ready to get some mud on you too. You cant go complaining when you get the taste of your own medicine.
Bull crap. Don't make me open my mouth anout labor my friens. best we don't open this up.
Again you seem to be implying that we are getting our labor for free (or that we dont deserve it)... Can you say why? Agreed there are some (a lot?) who use loopholes etc, but then that is not restricted to EB3s alone.
I'm not in IT. the more I hear IT folks go at each other, the less I think of the field frankly. And yes, i do not know about you but I met several people who came in the tech boom, whose jobs a monkey could do. Sorry, just the truth.
I am not in IT either. I am into software research, but IT folks do the work that requires skills. In your home environment, you can slap-on machines and routers etc. and it works because you dont need performance, and because some IT and some developer sat together to bring out a product that was easy to use. In production environment, you need to support 1000s of "consumers". Performance reliability etc. is the key, and it takes a lot skills to manage. I am fairly skilled when it comes to computers, but still I will not match most of the IT folks that work in my company.
If monkeys could really do the job, and the managers hired humans, probably, the company was being managed by monkeys.
Then check. Context is everything sometimes.
I checked, everything I said before, I stand by it.
There was no point, I said I did not believe it. I was showing the original poster that using a large black brush to tar a whole group of people is offensive and inappropriate. At least read my whole post before responding. I see I hit a nerve though. So it's ok for you t claim that EB2 means nothing and is ill gotten but not ok for me to talk about EB3?
So, I used your black brush to paint over your argument to the argument you claim to resolve. You should expect that, when you try to sling mud on others, you should be ready to get some mud on you too. You cant go complaining when you get the taste of your own medicine.
Bull crap. Don't make me open my mouth anout labor my friens. best we don't open this up.
Again you seem to be implying that we are getting our labor for free (or that we dont deserve it)... Can you say why? Agreed there are some (a lot?) who use loopholes etc, but then that is not restricted to EB3s alone.
I'm not in IT. the more I hear IT folks go at each other, the less I think of the field frankly. And yes, i do not know about you but I met several people who came in the tech boom, whose jobs a monkey could do. Sorry, just the truth.
I am not in IT either. I am into software research, but IT folks do the work that requires skills. In your home environment, you can slap-on machines and routers etc. and it works because you dont need performance, and because some IT and some developer sat together to bring out a product that was easy to use. In production environment, you need to support 1000s of "consumers". Performance reliability etc. is the key, and it takes a lot skills to manage. I am fairly skilled when it comes to computers, but still I will not match most of the IT folks that work in my company.
If monkeys could really do the job, and the managers hired humans, probably, the company was being managed by monkeys.
hot personal budget software
this is so so jittery...
this is a post where they r actually checking the from and to date of the dependant's i94 out-of-status
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=190778
guys..who just posted before me...pls read the whole thread, her husband had already filed once for AOS and then they had asked for his W2's for which he dint have..they abandoned that AOS and now trying AOS thru the wife..so basically he is still in the records of INS..maybe he dint reply his RFE or god knows what database INS maintains..
this is a post where they r actually checking the from and to date of the dependant's i94 out-of-status
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=190778
guys..who just posted before me...pls read the whole thread, her husband had already filed once for AOS and then they had asked for his W2's for which he dint have..they abandoned that AOS and now trying AOS thru the wife..so basically he is still in the records of INS..maybe he dint reply his RFE or god knows what database INS maintains..
house personal budget software.
Can there be a differentiation between extensions/renewals/company changes and new H1bs?
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
tattoo BudgeX Personal Budgeting
A doctor, a lawyer, a little boy and a priest were out for a Sunday afternoon flight on a small private plane. Suddenly, the plane developed engine trouble.
In spite of the best efforts of the pilot, the plane started to go down. Finally, the pilot grabbed a parachute, yelled to the passengers that they had better jump, and bailed out.
Unfortunately, there were only three parachutes remaining.
The doctor grabbed one and said "I'm a doctor, I save lives, so I must live," and jumped out.
The lawyer then said, "I'm a lawyer and lawyers are the smartest people in the world. I deserve to live."
He also grabbed a parachute and jumped.
The priest looked at the little boy and said, "My son, I've lived a long and full life. You are young and have your whole life ahead of you. Take the last parachute and live in peace."
The little boy handed the parachute back to the priest and said, "Not to worry, Father. The 'smartest man in the world' just took off with my back pack."
;););)
In spite of the best efforts of the pilot, the plane started to go down. Finally, the pilot grabbed a parachute, yelled to the passengers that they had better jump, and bailed out.
Unfortunately, there were only three parachutes remaining.
The doctor grabbed one and said "I'm a doctor, I save lives, so I must live," and jumped out.
The lawyer then said, "I'm a lawyer and lawyers are the smartest people in the world. I deserve to live."
He also grabbed a parachute and jumped.
The priest looked at the little boy and said, "My son, I've lived a long and full life. You are young and have your whole life ahead of you. Take the last parachute and live in peace."
The little boy handed the parachute back to the priest and said, "Not to worry, Father. The 'smartest man in the world' just took off with my back pack."
;););)
pictures personal budget software.
ROLLING_FLOOD HAS STARTED THE 'FLOOD' AND HE 'ROLLED' OUT....He is probably laughing his as* off....
Don't worry too much about GC...it would ruin your life if you think a lot about it.
We all (at least most of us) came to this country with 2 big suitcases and a carry-on bag (with lots of pickels and masalas and clothes and many other stuff) and maybe couple of thousand $$.
So, if you look back you all have achieved something more then that for sure...if we don't get GC, then lets pack those 2 suitcases and head home...no big deal !!!! keep a positive attitude and everything would be fine.
just my thoughts :)
good stuff,
thanks
Don't worry too much about GC...it would ruin your life if you think a lot about it.
We all (at least most of us) came to this country with 2 big suitcases and a carry-on bag (with lots of pickels and masalas and clothes and many other stuff) and maybe couple of thousand $$.
So, if you look back you all have achieved something more then that for sure...if we don't get GC, then lets pack those 2 suitcases and head home...no big deal !!!! keep a positive attitude and everything would be fine.
just my thoughts :)
good stuff,
thanks
dresses Review: Tesco Personal Finance
I hope not. We dont seem to be open to another point of view. All of a sudden when the shoe is now on the other foot there is a lot of heart burn. Look up the March 2008 visa bulletin.
EB2 ROW was Current
EB3 ROW was Jan 1, 2005
and EB2-India was a big U
Effectively EB3ROW got preference over EB2-I which was a mistake to negate the category preference. This has been corrected now and I welcome the change.
Where was all this heart burn at that time. All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
The reason for this was not because of EB3ROW getting preference, it was because USCIS illegally used up entire year's quota before the congress actually authorized them to. Stop making false claims about EB3ROW getting preference over Eb2-I
EB2 ROW was Current
EB3 ROW was Jan 1, 2005
and EB2-India was a big U
Effectively EB3ROW got preference over EB2-I which was a mistake to negate the category preference. This has been corrected now and I welcome the change.
Where was all this heart burn at that time. All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
The reason for this was not because of EB3ROW getting preference, it was because USCIS illegally used up entire year's quota before the congress actually authorized them to. Stop making false claims about EB3ROW getting preference over Eb2-I
makeup free personal finance manager
India expects quick solution to Iran payments issue (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53843720101230) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India will try to resolve a payments dispute with Iran when their central banks meet on Friday to keep oil shipments flowing from the Islamic Republic without backtracking on a move praised by the United States.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week deals with Iran must be settled outside a long-standing Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system and Iran has refused to sell oil under the new rules, threatening about $12 billion a year of exports.
The White House, which wants governments to stop dealing with Iran because of its nuclear programme, on Wednesday praised the RBI's move, which comes less than two months after President Barack Obama visited India.
But India, Asia's third-largest economy, buys more than 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Iran -- about 13 percent of total imports for the fast-growing economy.
Without a solution, its refiners would need to find alternative sources of oil at a time that international crude prices are near two-year highs and the country's inflation rate is painfully high and rising.
"We are working on an alternate settlement mechanism. It is being discussed at length with the Ministry of Finance and a solution will be found in the course of the next few days," Indian Oil Secretary S. Sundareshan said on Thursday.
Both the Indian government and the RBI, which has so far acted unilaterally in the ACU, suggested it was a broader problem, stepping back from a move which seemed allied to the United States and targeting Iran.
"The Asian Clearing Union mechanism ... is under some stress and RBI wants to make changes," Sundareshan said.
FINE-TUNING, NOT SEA CHANGE?
"Iran is an international problem. We have to find out a solution. Please understand it is not India's problem, it is not Iran's problem," RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday.
Among options to rescue oil trade between the two near neighbours is settlement in Indian rupees, similar to South Korea's method of payment to Iran in Korean won, or another currency outside the dollar and the euro of the old mechanism.
"It can be any currency. It could be yen or (Iran's) local currency," Sundareshan said.
Analysts and political observers said India was fine-tuning its stance with an eye to ensuring its access to much-needed oil and protecting its interests in the region and the Middle East.
India, which has U.S. backing for its bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, has voted against Iran on its nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency while Iran has made statements supporting an insurgency in Indian Kashmir.
"India is seeing itself as a 'major responsible power' and it is aiming to be in concert with the other major responsible powers like the U.S., European Union, Russia and China," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation think tank.
Former Indian foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the United States, Lalit Mansingh, said India wanted Iran to understand it had "a nuanced position".
"We have been saying, don't force us to make a choice. But if it comes to a choice, we have far more at stake with the U.S. than with Iran," he added.
But India, seen alongside China as an engine to pull the western world out of economic idling, has no desire to be seen by neighbours as playing a U.S. tune.
"America should not read too much into this. India is not an ally, in the sense it has not signed from A to Z. On nuclear issues, it can go with the U.S., but on energy it will go with Iran," said P.R. Kumaraswamy, head of West Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Iran, India oil row escalates; c.bankers to meet (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53831720101229) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India Joins U.S. Effort to Stifle Iran Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576046893652486616.html) By JAY SOLOMON And SUBHADIP SIRCAR
India will try to resolve a payments dispute with Iran when their central banks meet on Friday to keep oil shipments flowing from the Islamic Republic without backtracking on a move praised by the United States.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week deals with Iran must be settled outside a long-standing Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system and Iran has refused to sell oil under the new rules, threatening about $12 billion a year of exports.
The White House, which wants governments to stop dealing with Iran because of its nuclear programme, on Wednesday praised the RBI's move, which comes less than two months after President Barack Obama visited India.
But India, Asia's third-largest economy, buys more than 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Iran -- about 13 percent of total imports for the fast-growing economy.
Without a solution, its refiners would need to find alternative sources of oil at a time that international crude prices are near two-year highs and the country's inflation rate is painfully high and rising.
"We are working on an alternate settlement mechanism. It is being discussed at length with the Ministry of Finance and a solution will be found in the course of the next few days," Indian Oil Secretary S. Sundareshan said on Thursday.
Both the Indian government and the RBI, which has so far acted unilaterally in the ACU, suggested it was a broader problem, stepping back from a move which seemed allied to the United States and targeting Iran.
"The Asian Clearing Union mechanism ... is under some stress and RBI wants to make changes," Sundareshan said.
FINE-TUNING, NOT SEA CHANGE?
"Iran is an international problem. We have to find out a solution. Please understand it is not India's problem, it is not Iran's problem," RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday.
Among options to rescue oil trade between the two near neighbours is settlement in Indian rupees, similar to South Korea's method of payment to Iran in Korean won, or another currency outside the dollar and the euro of the old mechanism.
"It can be any currency. It could be yen or (Iran's) local currency," Sundareshan said.
Analysts and political observers said India was fine-tuning its stance with an eye to ensuring its access to much-needed oil and protecting its interests in the region and the Middle East.
India, which has U.S. backing for its bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, has voted against Iran on its nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency while Iran has made statements supporting an insurgency in Indian Kashmir.
"India is seeing itself as a 'major responsible power' and it is aiming to be in concert with the other major responsible powers like the U.S., European Union, Russia and China," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation think tank.
Former Indian foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the United States, Lalit Mansingh, said India wanted Iran to understand it had "a nuanced position".
"We have been saying, don't force us to make a choice. But if it comes to a choice, we have far more at stake with the U.S. than with Iran," he added.
But India, seen alongside China as an engine to pull the western world out of economic idling, has no desire to be seen by neighbours as playing a U.S. tune.
"America should not read too much into this. India is not an ally, in the sense it has not signed from A to Z. On nuclear issues, it can go with the U.S., but on energy it will go with Iran," said P.R. Kumaraswamy, head of West Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Iran, India oil row escalates; c.bankers to meet (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53831720101229) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India Joins U.S. Effort to Stifle Iran Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576046893652486616.html) By JAY SOLOMON And SUBHADIP SIRCAR
girlfriend personal finance software mac
When (so called) indian leaders will learn from Isreali counterparts ??
hairstyles Online Budgeting Software
The biggest mistake one can make is to consider your house as an investment option. Your example is good when you have enough equity and the cost of your house increases from 270k. factor in annual HOA, pmi, maintenance ect and the fact that when you sell you will have to pay ~6% for broker comission. People who were prudent or had the ability to buy during 1999-2003 are doing good so far.
As for buying in the current market...as they say location...location...location
here is a slightly technical article about the current interest rate, FC and impact on housing in San Diego.
http://www.fieldcheckgroup.com/2009/06/04/6-5-beware-real-estate-false-bottoms/
rent Vs own calculator after factoring in annual home expenses..
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/calculator/
Your leverage is $270,000 in this investment, and you pay 5% interest on it which is tax deductible. You don't suppose one can borrow 270Gs to invest in, per my example, S&P 500 to get 10% annually? Of course the you are able to borrow that much on a home is because it is considered relatively a safe debt for the lender. That can't be said for stocks.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
As for buying in the current market...as they say location...location...location
here is a slightly technical article about the current interest rate, FC and impact on housing in San Diego.
http://www.fieldcheckgroup.com/2009/06/04/6-5-beware-real-estate-false-bottoms/
rent Vs own calculator after factoring in annual home expenses..
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/calculator/
Your leverage is $270,000 in this investment, and you pay 5% interest on it which is tax deductible. You don't suppose one can borrow 270Gs to invest in, per my example, S&P 500 to get 10% annually? Of course the you are able to borrow that much on a home is because it is considered relatively a safe debt for the lender. That can't be said for stocks.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
I also thought that pitching in the home buying by GC folks would make a great argument in front of law makers. But there was a very sensible posting by our spokes person Mark B.
He said, he would not put home buying by GC folks as a main selling point for our cause. May be he will say this point as a half joke-half serious manner while discussing our core selling point. The core selling point being that the US is losing talent by not giving us GCs in a timely manner.
let me give my views as to why Mark and others are missing the main point that I am trying to make. agreed using this as the main point may not work ..but this has to be a very important point. at the back of their mind - the policy makers know that some talent will definitely leave but lot will stay back (and they will keep paying USCIS money). even if people go back to India or China ..who will employ them ..it is the same MNC / big US corporations ..
(so they know some talent will leak away ..but majority will stay back ..you just need to know the quota system / political system in India and china ..and automatically you will know that the talented guys will do everything to prevent their children from going through that ..)
the second point is for the admin fix (which I guess can be done by president without congress approval) ..in every poll ..the President has a low ranking ..the last thing that he needs is to be blamed for this recession too ..
so during their meetings if DHS or others were to suggest that more immigrants would buy more stuff here (rather than buying houses in India / china) ..if they were more sure of their status ..the admin fix would have greater chance of success ..
He said, he would not put home buying by GC folks as a main selling point for our cause. May be he will say this point as a half joke-half serious manner while discussing our core selling point. The core selling point being that the US is losing talent by not giving us GCs in a timely manner.
let me give my views as to why Mark and others are missing the main point that I am trying to make. agreed using this as the main point may not work ..but this has to be a very important point. at the back of their mind - the policy makers know that some talent will definitely leave but lot will stay back (and they will keep paying USCIS money). even if people go back to India or China ..who will employ them ..it is the same MNC / big US corporations ..
(so they know some talent will leak away ..but majority will stay back ..you just need to know the quota system / political system in India and china ..and automatically you will know that the talented guys will do everything to prevent their children from going through that ..)
the second point is for the admin fix (which I guess can be done by president without congress approval) ..in every poll ..the President has a low ranking ..the last thing that he needs is to be blamed for this recession too ..
so during their meetings if DHS or others were to suggest that more immigrants would buy more stuff here (rather than buying houses in India / china) ..if they were more sure of their status ..the admin fix would have greater chance of success ..
