MALAYSIA DAY....MERDEKA!!!

         

Tunku Abd.Rahman

Datuk Onn JaafarDr.Burhanuddin HelmyAhmad Boestamam 

Datuk Hussein OnnTun Dr Mahathir MohammmadDatuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.PM Malaysia Kini.

Kemerdekaan Malaysia yang Ke- 50 tahun.31.08.2007.

 

Who Cares?

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years, reporting on everything from sports to politics. From 1969-71, he worked as a campaign staffer for gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races in several states. He was an editor, assistant to the publisher, and columnist for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971 to 2001.

Who Cares?

by Charley Reese

The most important issue facing America is not even being debated by the presidential candidates. With the exception of Ron Paul, all of the candidates are acting on the assumption that America's interventionist foreign policy should continue. They only differ on the details of the intervention.
Since Dr. Paul doesn't have a chance of winning, I can therefore guarantee you that regardless of who wins the nominations and regardless of who ends up in the White House, you will be saddled with same failed interventionist policy. As in the past, it will preclude peace and result in conflicts that ultimately will bring America down. We can squander blood and treasure only so long before we collapse. Then we will join the heap of has-been empires like the British, French, Dutch and Soviets.
That's why I have no interest in the presidential race.
The United States has no moral or legal right to interfere in the internal affairs of any other nation. It is not threatened by any nation-state and therefore has no need of allies. An ally is someone who fights on your side during a war. When the war ends, the need for alliances ends.
George Washington – still the wisest man ever to serve as president – warned us against interventionism. He warned us against the influence of foreign lobbies. As he said, there is no reason for America to involve itself in the intrigues, feuds and wars that plague most parts of the world. Our only contact with the outside world should be in trade and commerce.
The problem of terrorism, which is a direct result of our interventionist policies, is not a war. It is a conflict with a few individuals. If we stopped our interventionist foreign policies, the problem of terrorists would gradually fade away. In the meantime, terrorism can be handled by intelligence and police work. It is not a fight the military can win.
The concept of a preemptive war should be an abomination to every American. Preemptive war is a war of aggression. It was the policy of Hitler's Germany and of the Japanese imperial government. To our national shame, apparently many Americans support the concept. They should never again criticize the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, the Third Reich for the invasion of Poland, or the Soviet Union for the invasion of Afghanistan. Click your heels and salute. You are no different from the people who cheered for Hitler.
The concept of a so-called humanitarian war, trotted out by Bill Clinton to justify intervention in the Balkans, is a contradiction in terms. War itself is a crime against humanity. No sane person can justify inflicting death and destruction in the name of humanitarianism.
The great tragedy caused by the interventionists is that they sabotage the peaceful and prosperous country that America could be. It's no mystery why the infrastructure is beginning to fail. It's no mystery why public education fails in so many places. It's no mystery why health care is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Look at the cost of the empire – the military and intelligence budgets, the cost of the wars. Between the military-industrial complex and the new war service industry, the treasury is being sucked dry by the worst people for the worst reasons.
In the meantime, what are the presidential candidates talking about? A few social schemes. Different strategies for intervention. They are like the first-class passengers on the Titanic, sitting around discussing their business deals and various affairs. They show no sign of awareness of the real world outside the televised game show called "Win the Nomination."
Who's ahead? Who zinged who? Who cares?

HENTI PEPERANGAN....STOP WAR NOW !!!

    

vietnam war  

  

SELURUH umat dunia cinta dan inginkan keamanan abadi di bumi yang mereka huni ini. Namun, matlamat itu tidak akan tercapai sepenuhnya, selagi ada pihak yang sombong dan bongkak bahawa mereka adalah kuasa segala-galanya di bumi. Mereka sanggup berbuat apa saja untuk menunjukkan kekuasaan termasuk melancarkan serangan terhadap orang lain walaupun tanpa alasan kukuh. Tidak kurang yang bertelingkah atas pelbagai sebab seperti mendapatkan kemerdekaan, merebut sumber asli dan perkauman yang akhirnya membawa ke kancah peperangan.

Apa yang nyata tiada siapa yang untung daripada peperangan. Bak kata pepatah ‘kalah jadi abu, menang jadi debu’. Kesannya negara musnah, ekonomi lumpuh, pembangunan tergendala dan paling buruk lagi rakyat menderita, terkorban dan cedera. Sejarah sudah membuktikan buruknya kesan peperangan. Peperangan yang terus berlaku sekarang, walaupun kesannya sudah dilihat dan dirasakan, tidak pernah menginsafkan golongan terbabit.

Berikut adalah beberapa soalan yang  kemukakan?

1. Bersetujukah anda bahawa peperangan adalah suatu jenayah? Apa komen anda?

2. Apakah tindakan yang anda rasa semua negara harus lakukan apabila sesebuah negara memerangi negara lain?

3. Apakah bentuk-bentuk peperangan yang sempat anda fikirkan ketika ini?

4. Sekiranya anda adalah pemimpin negara ketika ini, apakah langkah-langkah yang anda akan rancang dan lakukan untuk mengelakkan negara anda daripada menjadi mangsa peperangan?

5. Negara jiran anda telah diserang oleh sebuah negara yang lain? Apa tindakan yang akan anda lakukan sebagai rakyat dan sebagai pemimpin?

 Sami Protes-war M.GHANDI..SAID.. 

I was never one of those who believed the Bush administration was getting ready to attack Iran in 2006 or early 2007. But it is now clear that at least Vice President Dick Cheney is conspiring to push through a specific plan for war with Iran. And Senator Joe Lieberman is an active part of that conspiracy.

We have known for a long time that Cheney wants a major air attack on Iranian nuclear sites and other military and economic targets. But an August 9 story published by McClatchy newspapers reveals that, instead of waiting for a decision to go ahead with such a strategic attack against Iran, Cheney now hopes to get Bush to approve an attack on camps in Iran where Iraqi Shiite militiamen have allegedly been trained in recent years. The McClatchy story says Cheney proposed such a strike within the administration "several weeks ago," citing "two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy." The official sources say Cheney "argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq." An example of such "hard new evidence," according to one of the official sources of the report, would be "catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran."

The story also indicates that the same officials say Condoleezza Rice "opposes this idea" and suggest that Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates agrees with her position.

The Cheney proposal for an airstrike against three bases in Iran can have only one purpose -- to provoke an Iranian retaliation that would then make it possible to unleash a full-fledged strategic air attack against Iran. The provocation strategy would be an obvious way around the political obstacles in the way of an unprovoked attack. -by gareth-porter.

 

Plan for Peace

 

plan for peace

  

We are talking about merging all the armies in the world into one large army as a means of eliminating war in the arena of international affairs. Obviously it is never going to be as simple and straight forward as that, but before we examine all the difficulties and hazards of such an idea, let's consider all the possible advantages of it:

bullet

The first advantage is the elimination of war (isn't that enough?) It is clear and straight forward that this would be the case; one army cannot have a war by itself.

bullet

The next advantage is the elimination of nuclear bombs and all other weapons of mass destruction. It just would not be appropriate to keep them anymore. It could be the first job of the army to see that everybody got rid of them all, and that nobody developed and manufactured them any more.

bullet

The army could be greatly reduced in size; this means that the cost in maintaining it would be far less than the total cost of maintaining the numerous individual armies that exist today; that means more money for all the world's other problems.

bullet

The army would be in a very good position to deal with international terrorism; it would already be based everywhere in the world and could inherit a multitude of intelligence networks.

bullet

The army could police and maintain international borders, thereby appeasing man's inherent territorial nature.

bullet

The army could undertake the job of removing all the thousands of land mines and other live munitions that are laying about in some countries waiting for some child to step on them.

bullet

The army could enforce international law and other dictates made by the United Nations. At the moment the one shortfall of the U.N. is that it has no impartial agents to enforce its rulings.

bullet

The army could exist as something to be relied upon in times of natural disaster and crisis, and as a resource supporting any humanitarian causes needing assistance.

bullet

The army could remain as the foremost institution for the development of human character, fitness and abilities, ( one possible good thing to come out of a history of warfare).

bullet

Under such an arrangement, countries would remain free to be able to pursue and develop a diverse range of systems of government and policies. 

 United Nations

Do you agree that all these possible benefits make this plan worthy of serious consideration and effort to see it accomplished?