smisachu
12-28 09:28 PM
I agree to what you say. But understand that firing a nuke needs more than having one. Our missile shield is pretty good, we have several anti missile defence shields installed all across the border with Pakistan including the Rann of Kutch. Yes they are only tested and not war tested, but so are pakistans wepons. At least our wepons are self produced, paks are purchased chinese crap. I doubt nukes will be used even if there is a conflict.
As you say we have suffered for 60 years due to terrorism and we need to end it. I am not advocating war but killing all terrorists. India has no interest in Pakistan and has no use for it if we occupy it. I was just highlighting the capacity of our Army not advocating marching to Islamabad. All we need to do is get back POK into our control and eliminate the Terrorists there, revoke article 370 and assimilate Kashmir and kashmiris into rest of India and vice versa.
Listen as some one who has lost a cousin in Kargil and an uncle in 71 war and with 3 cousins still serving in the force , I know the pain of war closer than you might think. Thats why I want to end it once and for all. Do you know, a Jawan is killed due to COLD in siachen glazier every week and this is a place we dont have to put our boys on through the winter, but we do just because if we dont Pak will occupy our post come Summer.
We need to kill terrorists and let modren pakistanis to gain control of the country, until this is done this problem will not go away for India or the US or anyone else.
I hope thats your bravado speaking. Otherwise what you have stated is mostly inaccurate. Much as I would like to see Pakistan walloped for supporting the jehadi pigs, what war could potentially escalate into is far scarier than 200 people killed in Mumbai. It could mean the deaths of hundreds (or many times that) people - both Indian and Pakistani. That casualty number is not acceptable given that we've been absorbing thousands of losses in the last 50 years...scratch that - even in the last 20 years. IMHO Kargil was a bigger event than Mumbai than this since they had the b*lls to waltz onto Indian territory.
Strategically, India has no advantage pushing on to Islamabad (which is why we didn't in the wars earlier). Logistics will not support an invasion - primarily because the local population will not support it. And then it means killing thousands of non army personnel to hold on to territory and sustaining the same kind of losses. ('71 push to Dhaka was a contrast because the local population was supportive of India's/ Muktibahini push)
Nukes - for the delivery mechanism it doesn't need to be accurate - it just needs to get close and explode above or around the target. If it explodes in the air there are fewer casualties than if it were to land on the ground - then the massive fallout would be even more catastrophic. Anti-missile shield? Wow - but no way are they going to be effective. 4 minutes of flying time from Pak to India for an aircraft - its hard intercepting aircraft (which are far slower than missiles the last time i checked).. you need to research a little more before speaking up. And none of India's or for that matter Pakistans missiles have been war-proven (remember Murphys law - yes that will creep in here also)
Yes - India can wipe out terror camps; wipe out the PAF/ Pakistan army etc. But what is the strategic advantage? An economic setback of 20 years? No buffer between Afghanistan, and the hardcore mullahs west of Pakistan (most Pakis outside of the ISI are liberal Islamists). Also, the US will be more concerned about the Afghan border and will step up international pressure on India to let Pakistan be - worse - it could take an offensive posture against India as in '71 (like everyone else US cares about its interests first)
Pakistan is that spoilt younger sibling to India that keeps making noise to get whatever it wants. Now the time has come when even they know they've gone too far. And its A**kicking time - but not militarily. A tough stance from India and the rest of from the rest of the world will work also. Tough love, baby!
India's interests are best served by getting ISI branded a terror organization, Pakistan a terror state and by de-linking Kashmir with the whole terror issue since most of the terrorists are non locals anyway (because Pakis want the focus on Kashmir). Repeal article 370 so that Kashmiri Pandits are assisted in returning to Kashmir along with other Indians (whatever religion so wants to). Rebuild Kashmir economically. Help liberal Pakis rebuild their country - and with a better economy, maybe good sense will prevail in that failed state.
Strength is not always an action of force. Strength is sometimes force of action - and India needs to be forceful in its actions - not relenting, not giving up until South Asia is a peaceful place again.
As you say we have suffered for 60 years due to terrorism and we need to end it. I am not advocating war but killing all terrorists. India has no interest in Pakistan and has no use for it if we occupy it. I was just highlighting the capacity of our Army not advocating marching to Islamabad. All we need to do is get back POK into our control and eliminate the Terrorists there, revoke article 370 and assimilate Kashmir and kashmiris into rest of India and vice versa.
Listen as some one who has lost a cousin in Kargil and an uncle in 71 war and with 3 cousins still serving in the force , I know the pain of war closer than you might think. Thats why I want to end it once and for all. Do you know, a Jawan is killed due to COLD in siachen glazier every week and this is a place we dont have to put our boys on through the winter, but we do just because if we dont Pak will occupy our post come Summer.
We need to kill terrorists and let modren pakistanis to gain control of the country, until this is done this problem will not go away for India or the US or anyone else.
I hope thats your bravado speaking. Otherwise what you have stated is mostly inaccurate. Much as I would like to see Pakistan walloped for supporting the jehadi pigs, what war could potentially escalate into is far scarier than 200 people killed in Mumbai. It could mean the deaths of hundreds (or many times that) people - both Indian and Pakistani. That casualty number is not acceptable given that we've been absorbing thousands of losses in the last 50 years...scratch that - even in the last 20 years. IMHO Kargil was a bigger event than Mumbai than this since they had the b*lls to waltz onto Indian territory.
Strategically, India has no advantage pushing on to Islamabad (which is why we didn't in the wars earlier). Logistics will not support an invasion - primarily because the local population will not support it. And then it means killing thousands of non army personnel to hold on to territory and sustaining the same kind of losses. ('71 push to Dhaka was a contrast because the local population was supportive of India's/ Muktibahini push)
Nukes - for the delivery mechanism it doesn't need to be accurate - it just needs to get close and explode above or around the target. If it explodes in the air there are fewer casualties than if it were to land on the ground - then the massive fallout would be even more catastrophic. Anti-missile shield? Wow - but no way are they going to be effective. 4 minutes of flying time from Pak to India for an aircraft - its hard intercepting aircraft (which are far slower than missiles the last time i checked).. you need to research a little more before speaking up. And none of India's or for that matter Pakistans missiles have been war-proven (remember Murphys law - yes that will creep in here also)
Yes - India can wipe out terror camps; wipe out the PAF/ Pakistan army etc. But what is the strategic advantage? An economic setback of 20 years? No buffer between Afghanistan, and the hardcore mullahs west of Pakistan (most Pakis outside of the ISI are liberal Islamists). Also, the US will be more concerned about the Afghan border and will step up international pressure on India to let Pakistan be - worse - it could take an offensive posture against India as in '71 (like everyone else US cares about its interests first)
Pakistan is that spoilt younger sibling to India that keeps making noise to get whatever it wants. Now the time has come when even they know they've gone too far. And its A**kicking time - but not militarily. A tough stance from India and the rest of from the rest of the world will work also. Tough love, baby!
India's interests are best served by getting ISI branded a terror organization, Pakistan a terror state and by de-linking Kashmir with the whole terror issue since most of the terrorists are non locals anyway (because Pakis want the focus on Kashmir). Repeal article 370 so that Kashmiri Pandits are assisted in returning to Kashmir along with other Indians (whatever religion so wants to). Rebuild Kashmir economically. Help liberal Pakis rebuild their country - and with a better economy, maybe good sense will prevail in that failed state.
Strength is not always an action of force. Strength is sometimes force of action - and India needs to be forceful in its actions - not relenting, not giving up until South Asia is a peaceful place again.
wallpaper Calendar For 2011 Uk Images:
gimme_GC2006
03-23 08:23 PM
ok...this is something..
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
alterego
11-11 10:50 PM
Americans are fair minded for the most part. They saw the propoganda of the far right for what it was. This election did not tilt on immigration, but on other issues. However the fact that the conservatives got zero traction from their hard line approach implies that the country was looking for a more comprehensive solution.
I think that the american public does want secure borders and to some extent is unhappy with the status quo on the border. However they are also cognisant of the fact that immigrant labour benefits them and their lifestyles tremendously. They by and large do not favour a get tough only policy. They could easily embrace a policy where hardworking people can "earn their way" into the kingdom. Bipartisanship will perhaps show the way forward. Imagine those guys like Sensenbrenner,Tancredo would not even negotiate with the Senate or allow anything pro any kind of immigration to a general house vote taking advantage of their majority position by their "majority of the majority rule". They even actively stripped legal immigration provisions in conference last year. As for Sensenbrenner and his types. Lets see how much they enjoy being in the "minority of the minority" now, I guess the bulldog that chewed out the senators and cleaned his teeth with their bones is now but a mere poodle in the room! Gotta love elections in a democracy.
I think that the american public does want secure borders and to some extent is unhappy with the status quo on the border. However they are also cognisant of the fact that immigrant labour benefits them and their lifestyles tremendously. They by and large do not favour a get tough only policy. They could easily embrace a policy where hardworking people can "earn their way" into the kingdom. Bipartisanship will perhaps show the way forward. Imagine those guys like Sensenbrenner,Tancredo would not even negotiate with the Senate or allow anything pro any kind of immigration to a general house vote taking advantage of their majority position by their "majority of the majority rule". They even actively stripped legal immigration provisions in conference last year. As for Sensenbrenner and his types. Lets see how much they enjoy being in the "minority of the minority" now, I guess the bulldog that chewed out the senators and cleaned his teeth with their bones is now but a mere poodle in the room! Gotta love elections in a democracy.
2011 lunar calendar 2011 uk.
alien2006
07-14 03:03 PM
I wouldn't use the word slave so calously. We on H1s are not slaves, we have some restrictions but we are not slaves. I think you need to see some good documentary or better yet read books on slavery.
more...
nixstor
08-11 12:18 PM
Does any one have idea on this shows viewership? O M G, I am not sure how many facts are being adulterated and presented to the public.
Lou Dobbs Tonight aired on Aug 10th
Calling the whole H1B system as fraud is ridiculous and associating H1B as a threat to national security sounds lunatic. Enough of mudslinging.
Programmers Guild does know how many H1B's have been filed for every year. Follow the below link on the guild website released to prweb
June 2006: Guild Files 300 complaints against H-1B employers
which will take you to
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/6/prweb400619.htm
bottom of the page it shows
Database of LCAs for H-1B on Department of Labor website:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
I hope people start using google effectively.
How come CNN doesnt review the genuinity of the person making statements?
How come Programmers Guild get on CNN so often and not the people who they are opposing? How about calling one of those H1B organisations or Pro immigration organisations on to the talk show and have a one on one with Lou?
Lou Dobbs Tonight aired on Aug 10th
Calling the whole H1B system as fraud is ridiculous and associating H1B as a threat to national security sounds lunatic. Enough of mudslinging.
Programmers Guild does know how many H1B's have been filed for every year. Follow the below link on the guild website released to prweb
June 2006: Guild Files 300 complaints against H-1B employers
which will take you to
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/6/prweb400619.htm
bottom of the page it shows
Database of LCAs for H-1B on Department of Labor website:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
I hope people start using google effectively.
How come CNN doesnt review the genuinity of the person making statements?
How come Programmers Guild get on CNN so often and not the people who they are opposing? How about calling one of those H1B organisations or Pro immigration organisations on to the talk show and have a one on one with Lou?
mariner5555
04-16 04:50 AM
probably you have change your handle from iwantmygreen to iamgreenwithenvy. dude, first of all who made you the judge, second of all how and why did you assume that I bought a costly home?. I went in for a townhome not far from where Mr Marinner lives, going by his posts I know he lives in or near atlanta. also, we are on single income and I can happily afford the mortgage for my small home and ofcourse my kid is happy.
hi NKR,
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
hi NKR,
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
more...
singhsa3
08-05 09:35 AM
There is no point in dividing the forum. I think if someone wants to do something like this then the best course of action is to take this outside the forum or through PM.
Lawsuits are not child's play...
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
Lawsuits are not child's play...
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
2010 Screenshots 2011 UK Calendar:
aachoo
03-24 02:21 PM
I'm sure you meant Larry David ;)
I am not sure which season this was from. If it was before season 7 (?) I bow to your superior knowledge.
-a
I am not sure which season this was from. If it was before season 7 (?) I bow to your superior knowledge.
-a
more...
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
hair dresses Calendar+2011+uk
paskal
04-09 11:47 AM
The job description can be put in the way that points to your plus points. If you go the Harvard Biz. school you will have those. I dont think they want you to leave. There will be other avenues out there.
pete,
i am a physician and in the same boat as you. my employer searched high and dry before i came along. but you are missing something here. except universities that can hire the "best candidate", every other employer has to employ a citizen/gc applicant with the "minimum qualifications for the job". please revisit the rules if you do not understand this. your talent and extra skills count for nothing. employers cannot take the best applicant...if an LCA is needed. this is a very significant problem if applied to H1B renewals. Any tom dick and harry can displace you every 3 years. think about it please, not just your own situation. i am strongly in favor of H1B reform. i believe that this if linked with a bill like strive dramatically increase support for retrogression relief. however the reform needs to be thought through carefully. a 6 mnth LCA process for each renewal would kill us. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
pete,
i am a physician and in the same boat as you. my employer searched high and dry before i came along. but you are missing something here. except universities that can hire the "best candidate", every other employer has to employ a citizen/gc applicant with the "minimum qualifications for the job". please revisit the rules if you do not understand this. your talent and extra skills count for nothing. employers cannot take the best applicant...if an LCA is needed. this is a very significant problem if applied to H1B renewals. Any tom dick and harry can displace you every 3 years. think about it please, not just your own situation. i am strongly in favor of H1B reform. i believe that this if linked with a bill like strive dramatically increase support for retrogression relief. however the reform needs to be thought through carefully. a 6 mnth LCA process for each renewal would kill us. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
more...
NolaIndian32
09-28 07:58 PM
I agree 100% with the quote below; if Durbin gets his way, there will be no light at the end of the tunnel for the EB community.
I have been in the US, legally for 14+ years. I have stayed within the law, regulations to get my green card, but still after 8 years in this antiquated and dysfunctional process, I am "in queue". Twice I have had to turn down promotions to executive level within my organization because of restrictions of "same to similar" regulation. Even my CEO is frustrated with this situation. If Durbin has his way, I can no longer afford to put my life on hold. I will be forced to sell my house and relocate to Canada.
McCain supports immigration for legally employed immigrants. I pray that he wins the election this November.
After 8 yrs of Bush, I sure am ready for Democrats to take over. America needs a change. But Sen. Obama's victory will surely spell doom and gloom for the EB community - of which I am one.
I have been in the United States for 9 years - LEGALLY. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. My kids are American Citizens. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy. We even bought a house here in the hope that we can settle down in America. Me and my husband hold executive level positions in major multinationals. Here is the absolute kicker - I work in Satellite Telecommunications and my company supports the United States Government (DoD) and its contractors/ sub contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan!!
We wanted Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke us up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for us EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community forced us to secure the Canadian PR. We have a little bit more time to decide when we want to move there before our PR expires. If things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, we will move to Canada. I just dread having to sell the house here though!!
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against teh EB community. My question to Sen.Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
I have been in the US, legally for 14+ years. I have stayed within the law, regulations to get my green card, but still after 8 years in this antiquated and dysfunctional process, I am "in queue". Twice I have had to turn down promotions to executive level within my organization because of restrictions of "same to similar" regulation. Even my CEO is frustrated with this situation. If Durbin has his way, I can no longer afford to put my life on hold. I will be forced to sell my house and relocate to Canada.
McCain supports immigration for legally employed immigrants. I pray that he wins the election this November.
After 8 yrs of Bush, I sure am ready for Democrats to take over. America needs a change. But Sen. Obama's victory will surely spell doom and gloom for the EB community - of which I am one.
I have been in the United States for 9 years - LEGALLY. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. My kids are American Citizens. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy. We even bought a house here in the hope that we can settle down in America. Me and my husband hold executive level positions in major multinationals. Here is the absolute kicker - I work in Satellite Telecommunications and my company supports the United States Government (DoD) and its contractors/ sub contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan!!
We wanted Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke us up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for us EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community forced us to secure the Canadian PR. We have a little bit more time to decide when we want to move there before our PR expires. If things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, we will move to Canada. I just dread having to sell the house here though!!
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against teh EB community. My question to Sen.Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
hot calendar april 2011 uk.
desi3933
08-06 02:00 PM
red dot for this post.... are you nuts or someone touched a raw nerve or you have lots of spare time to create controversies:confused:
Just gave you a green.
Have a good day!
Just gave you a green.
Have a good day!
more...
house images 2011 calendar uk march.
ufo2002
05-24 01:30 PM
Well.. I am usually a thread killer in many forums... lets see if this works:
TTIWOP!
TTIWOP!
tattoo Appointments Calendar 2011
boreal
04-08 12:17 PM
I would rather buy low price house at high rates than low rates and at higher price. I can sell my house anytime I want. If you buy house at peak, you will not have equity when the price falls and you get holding the bag.
Thanks, the above quote is sealing the deal for me (NOT buying now). i am in the bay area too, was very excited to see all those Gilroy homes drop in value (sometimes more than 150K as shown in MLS listings, yeah i was prepared for the hell-commute to San jose from Gilroy just for the pleasure of giving a big house to my family...). But thanks to all the arguments and counter-arguments, i have more knowledge now and know not to burn more of my hard earned money (God knows how much i have already lost on stocks!!)
Thanks, the above quote is sealing the deal for me (NOT buying now). i am in the bay area too, was very excited to see all those Gilroy homes drop in value (sometimes more than 150K as shown in MLS listings, yeah i was prepared for the hell-commute to San jose from Gilroy just for the pleasure of giving a big house to my family...). But thanks to all the arguments and counter-arguments, i have more knowledge now and know not to burn more of my hard earned money (God knows how much i have already lost on stocks!!)
more...
pictures 2011 calendar uk with holidays
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
dresses calendar 2011 uk printable.
srkamath
07-13 05:59 PM
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initatives - call campaigns for House bils...
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
EB1 EB2 EB3 are "preference" categories established by a law. This letter seems to be demanding that the DOS ignore the "preference" - Sorry it won't work.
Elsewhere in this forum someone has another letter campaign directed at visa re-capture legislation. That might have some influence.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
EB1 EB2 EB3 are "preference" categories established by a law. This letter seems to be demanding that the DOS ignore the "preference" - Sorry it won't work.
Elsewhere in this forum someone has another letter campaign directed at visa re-capture legislation. That might have some influence.
more...
makeup Availability calendar 2011
sayantan76
12-29 11:20 PM
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
girlfriend april calendar 2011 uk.
bhatt
06-05 09:41 PM
Does anyone know that the closing has to be before November 30th in order to get this 8K tax benefit?
My advice don't buy just for the 8k tax benefit. The reatlors main weapon is this 8k tax credit now. In NJ/NY it is less than the property tax u r paying for one year. In other places with less house prices it may be good.
My advice don't buy just for the 8k tax benefit. The reatlors main weapon is this 8k tax credit now. In NJ/NY it is less than the property tax u r paying for one year. In other places with less house prices it may be good.
hairstyles tattoo 2011 calendar template
malaGCPahije
07-14 10:33 AM
Sure EB3-I needs help, but if the help is in the form of taking numbers away from EB2 and giving them to EB3 just based on the length of wait, then I have my serious objections to this proposal. I have said openly that I will object to it - I have never seen a post that says plainly - Yes EB3-I is stuck for 7-8 years and therefore they want numbers from EB2 because EB2 has moved ahead by 2 years. The irony is that all earlier posts imply this and talk about this request for handover in a very general way (75/25 break up, recession, lawyer input, etc).
Visa recapture, country cap elimination is where the solution lies. That is the REAL help that EB3-Retro wants. Any short term fix purely out of sympathy, empathy, humanity, kindness is not recogniszed by law.
I know people will pile on for speaking plainly and in a matter of fact manner, but I am amazed at the innuendo, implications and lack of straight talk.
Delax,
please read my message you quoted. I wrote nothing in support of or aganst the letter. Nothing they (earlier posts) say is going to make the dates go back or forward. All the poor folks are trying to do is maybe vent out their frustration. What difference does this make to you? No action is going to be taken based on one letter. You are safe, please enjoy your current date status.
I can see the writing on the wall about where IV would be once most of Eb2 get their GC. It would almost stop existing.
You and other EB2 people dates are current. Enjoy your GC. Best of luck.
Visa recapture, country cap elimination is where the solution lies. That is the REAL help that EB3-Retro wants. Any short term fix purely out of sympathy, empathy, humanity, kindness is not recogniszed by law.
I know people will pile on for speaking plainly and in a matter of fact manner, but I am amazed at the innuendo, implications and lack of straight talk.
Delax,
please read my message you quoted. I wrote nothing in support of or aganst the letter. Nothing they (earlier posts) say is going to make the dates go back or forward. All the poor folks are trying to do is maybe vent out their frustration. What difference does this make to you? No action is going to be taken based on one letter. You are safe, please enjoy your current date status.
I can see the writing on the wall about where IV would be once most of Eb2 get their GC. It would almost stop existing.
You and other EB2 people dates are current. Enjoy your GC. Best of luck.
diptam
08-05 08:53 AM
As i said earlier you have Zero understanding of these things and that's why you came to waste peoples time. You could be an anti-immigrant as well.
"GC is for future Job and one single person could be eligible for EB3 / EB2 / EB1 any kind of jobs - its the person's ELIGIBILITY which matters " - understand dumbo ?
What do you mean "i am eligible for EB2"?????
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
"GC is for future Job and one single person could be eligible for EB3 / EB2 / EB1 any kind of jobs - its the person's ELIGIBILITY which matters " - understand dumbo ?
What do you mean "i am eligible for EB2"?????
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
GCwaitforever
05-31 06:01 PM
Lou is an arm-chair critic. I have nothing more to say.
0 comments:
Post a Comment