The recent visit by Nepal's defense minister to China and Prachanda's hobnobbing with Russian and Cuban leaders signal Nepal's move away from Western influence. It must not be forgotten that Nepal's sovereignty was recognized first by UK, a western power. If it had not been UK's special relationship with Nepal during its presence in the Indian subcontinent, Nepal would not have existed as an independent state.
Also, the United States, the world's sole superpower recognized Nepal in 1947 much before Russia and China did. Pursuing a closer ties with SCO states might jeopardize Nepal's historic ties with the West.
Cuba's role in world politics is miniscule. The type of rhetoric emanating from Havana, its support for outright socialism in Venezuela would only serve to scare away foreign investment. State led approach advocated by socialist states would fail miserably.
Development of massive industries in China and Russia under communist rule resulted in growth of manufacturing of heavy equipment and not day to day consumer goods. But private sector paid heavily. Stalin ordered murder and liquidation of kulaks, the landowning producers. In China, Mao starved millions in his social mobilization schemes. His bloodthirst for power killed millions of Chinese in civil war with the nationalists. Nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek had better vision for management of resources. Look at Taiwan today. Its much better governed and regulated. Its export based economy and leadership in technology was in effect copied by Beijing. China's Olympics was heavily criticized for pollution, censorship and unrestricted development. Large construction alone would not help China. Nepal cannot afford to be another China, excessive regulation and lack of individual freedom. Its constitution is flawed with complete lack of stress on individualism and private initiative. Individual entrepreneurship is not encouraged in China, where state is the primary sector. Nepalese people cannot depend on their state alone. The money earned from remittance must be properly utilized.
Russia, a state led model, is again unsuitable for Nepal. Nepal does not have oil to sell. Its only resources are human and water. Tourism cannot grow on country with political violence. Judicial system and legal system has completely failed for proponents of violence have the seat of power. The electorate has been duped. Revolution and immediate change is simply not possible. Nepal cannot gain anything by importing ideas which are completely obsolete.
It was the Swiss who started cheese making in Nepal. Russia gave tobacco factory. Education and local development are being provided by the US. The Germans have given money for cultural preservation. That benefits tourism. Sustainable development and tourism are the only sectors suitable for Nepal.
Nepal's present leaders came from starting a war. Their claim to "represent the poeple" is basically derived from threat of violence. Appeals to reform and persuasion were denied to legitimate political organizations. Their clouded vision and socialist ideals would deny Nepal's participation in global economy and creation of more jobs at home. The presence of Nepal's foreign jobseekers in volatile regions like the Middle East poses a threat. Their abrupt return in times of international tensions such as any war involving Iran cannot be overlooked.
The so called leaders created the dangerous environment resulting in a massive outflow of rural youths to foreign countries. There might exist a nexus between the foreign employment business and the warmongering leaders. Tourists also prefer to go to India's hill stations like Sikkim and Darjeleeng and Tibet. Irresponsible politicking since 1990 which magnified after 2006 has led to reduced national income. The country is moving toward dark frontier. Radicalization of the youth and appeals to states which have grievous records of human rights and governance could lead to new conflicts.
SCO's umbrella cannot provide Nepal what the current leaders foresee as a front to mask their poor human rights record and their criminal background. SCO is a tool of autocratic Russia and China to manipulate the world. As the US is embroiled in two fronts, its influence in the world is perceived as weak by SCO adherents. Its recruiting effort to build a new Warsaw Pact and deny freedom to many of the world's peoples is to be oberved with keen interest.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The ignominious end of Saddam
Jan 4, 2007
By Pritam S Rana
During Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq, posters often depicted him as one of Babylon’s ancient rulers, Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar. Saddam considered himself as all powerful, able to make any decision, eliminate any opposition and rule with absolute impunity just like the ancient emperors. But on the fateful day of December 30, 2006, he was hanged after he was found guilty of crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to death by an Iraqi court for ordering the 1982 killings of 148 Shiite villagers in Dujail, Iraq, which was only a small part of the long catalogue of deaths and anguish he caused among Iraqis and the people of other neighbouring countries.
By 1968, Saddam had become the number two man in Iraq after the pan-Arabist Baath party solidified its grip in that country. Previously, Iraqi politics had been rather volatile with coups and counter-coups and assassination attempts against incumbent leaders. As Saddam was consolidating power within the Baath party leadership hierarchy, the 1973 oil crisis helped him generate massive revenues from the unprecedented rise in fuel prices then. Saddam was able to expand his agenda with the money into various social, agrarian and other development sectors in his country. He provided free education and health care which helped him gain countless well-wishers in his country.
In 1979, Saddam forced the ailing Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr from power and assumed the presidency of Iraq for himself, formally becoming Iraq’s all-in-all. Saddam’s first step after becoming president was the mass purging of the ruling Baath party. In a party assembly called by him in the same year, Saddam expunged 68 other Baathists among which 22 were reportedly executed. This was how Saddam solidified his power base, eliminating any possible threat to his one man rule.
Saddam’s foreign policy was even bloodier. Saddam closely remembered what he thought was an unequal agreement with Iran in the 1970s, which was then ruled by the Shahs and was a close ally of Washington. As revolution swept away the Shahs and the US leverage in Iran, Saddam grew suspicious of Iran’s new Islamist revolutionary government. Fearing that Iran’s Shiite leadership might incite Iraq’s own sizeable number of Shiites to rebel against his regime, Saddam ordered an invasion of Iran in 1980. The war with Iran lasted for 8 years and it killed nearly two million people from the two countries. During the war, Iraq acquired modern weapons from primarily the Soviet Union, China and France. Some analysts have pointed out that the US shared intelligence with Saddam’s regime during the war. The Iran-Iraq war was marked by barbaric bombings of civilian targets and by attacks against neutral shipping.
Also in 1988, the Saddam regime demonstared that it was prepared to violate all international agreements on using banned weapons. Having already used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers, Saddam’s air force bombed the town of Halabja with nerve and mustard gas, killing about 5,000 Kurdish civilians and maiming another 10,000.
Saddam’s lust for conquest was not lost for long. Two years after the costly war with Iran, Saddam began quarrelling with tiny but affluent oil rich Kuwait. He invaded Kuwait in 1990 and claimed “Kuwait was an Iraqi province.” The whole world led by the US quickly condemned Iraq’s latest aggression and a US led coalition massed combat troops in Saudi Arabia ostensibly to prevent any Iraqi move against the country, the world’s leading oil producer.
Saddam was foolish enough to think that he could challenge US military power. Using the clear skies of the open desert terrain of the region, US airpower paralyzed Iraqi military and other important targets inside a few days in 1991. As Saddam refused to pull out from Kuwait, the largest armoured force ever assembled since World War II entered Kuwait, decimated Iraqi resistance and liberated Kuwait within a few days. The ceasefire agreement allowed Iraq to enjoy its sovereignty but it had to pledge to give away its weapons of mass destruction. It also imposed no fly zones over Iraqi airspace to protect Iraqi minorities from air raids by Saddam’s air force.
Another phase of bloody events followed the 1991 Gulf War. Encouraged by Iraq’s defeat in Kuwait and prodded by the US administration to rebel against Saddam, the Shiite population in the south and the Kurds in the north of Iraq challenged Baghdad’s authority. As no help came from Washington, Saddam’s remnant troops massacred tens of thousands of would be resistance fighters and their families. Thus Saddam remained unchallenged.
The 2001 World Trade Center attacks profoundly influenced the Americans into believing that all anti-US regimes in the world had links with Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Saddam, an old time foe who had been challenging UN arms inspectors, was the prime target for the Bush administration in its global war on terror. US intelligence analysts possibly calculated that Al Qaida’s elusive organization married to Saddam’s purported arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons would pose a lethal threat to Washington and its allies. So in 1993, the US military invaded Iraq.
After facing an array of resistance within Iraq, the US military captured Saddam on December 2003. After a long series of trials marked by the assassination of lawyers and other hindrances, Saddam was finally sentenced to die on November 5, 2006. His appeal was rejected on December 26, 2006 as the verdict was upheld by Iraq’s highest appeals court.
Saddam paid with his life for his hands were bloody. Many opposed Saddam’s hanging while others spoke against the death penalty. Saddam has done many positive things for his country. He modernized his country, gave his people free health and education and oil subsidies, tax beaks, etc. But, he allowed his two sons to go on a killing spree in his country. He himself ordered the killings of his closest aides, his own people and people of his neighbouring countries. After all, he also ordered the murder of his own son-in laws. So how do we remember Saddam? Do we forget his crimes and the suffering he caused to so many families? If we end up supporting dictators and still say we support democratic values, I think it would be a great contradiction.
(From Kathmandu Post)
By Pritam S Rana
During Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq, posters often depicted him as one of Babylon’s ancient rulers, Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar. Saddam considered himself as all powerful, able to make any decision, eliminate any opposition and rule with absolute impunity just like the ancient emperors. But on the fateful day of December 30, 2006, he was hanged after he was found guilty of crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to death by an Iraqi court for ordering the 1982 killings of 148 Shiite villagers in Dujail, Iraq, which was only a small part of the long catalogue of deaths and anguish he caused among Iraqis and the people of other neighbouring countries.
By 1968, Saddam had become the number two man in Iraq after the pan-Arabist Baath party solidified its grip in that country. Previously, Iraqi politics had been rather volatile with coups and counter-coups and assassination attempts against incumbent leaders. As Saddam was consolidating power within the Baath party leadership hierarchy, the 1973 oil crisis helped him generate massive revenues from the unprecedented rise in fuel prices then. Saddam was able to expand his agenda with the money into various social, agrarian and other development sectors in his country. He provided free education and health care which helped him gain countless well-wishers in his country.
In 1979, Saddam forced the ailing Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr from power and assumed the presidency of Iraq for himself, formally becoming Iraq’s all-in-all. Saddam’s first step after becoming president was the mass purging of the ruling Baath party. In a party assembly called by him in the same year, Saddam expunged 68 other Baathists among which 22 were reportedly executed. This was how Saddam solidified his power base, eliminating any possible threat to his one man rule.
Saddam’s foreign policy was even bloodier. Saddam closely remembered what he thought was an unequal agreement with Iran in the 1970s, which was then ruled by the Shahs and was a close ally of Washington. As revolution swept away the Shahs and the US leverage in Iran, Saddam grew suspicious of Iran’s new Islamist revolutionary government. Fearing that Iran’s Shiite leadership might incite Iraq’s own sizeable number of Shiites to rebel against his regime, Saddam ordered an invasion of Iran in 1980. The war with Iran lasted for 8 years and it killed nearly two million people from the two countries. During the war, Iraq acquired modern weapons from primarily the Soviet Union, China and France. Some analysts have pointed out that the US shared intelligence with Saddam’s regime during the war. The Iran-Iraq war was marked by barbaric bombings of civilian targets and by attacks against neutral shipping.
Also in 1988, the Saddam regime demonstared that it was prepared to violate all international agreements on using banned weapons. Having already used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers, Saddam’s air force bombed the town of Halabja with nerve and mustard gas, killing about 5,000 Kurdish civilians and maiming another 10,000.
Saddam’s lust for conquest was not lost for long. Two years after the costly war with Iran, Saddam began quarrelling with tiny but affluent oil rich Kuwait. He invaded Kuwait in 1990 and claimed “Kuwait was an Iraqi province.” The whole world led by the US quickly condemned Iraq’s latest aggression and a US led coalition massed combat troops in Saudi Arabia ostensibly to prevent any Iraqi move against the country, the world’s leading oil producer.
Saddam was foolish enough to think that he could challenge US military power. Using the clear skies of the open desert terrain of the region, US airpower paralyzed Iraqi military and other important targets inside a few days in 1991. As Saddam refused to pull out from Kuwait, the largest armoured force ever assembled since World War II entered Kuwait, decimated Iraqi resistance and liberated Kuwait within a few days. The ceasefire agreement allowed Iraq to enjoy its sovereignty but it had to pledge to give away its weapons of mass destruction. It also imposed no fly zones over Iraqi airspace to protect Iraqi minorities from air raids by Saddam’s air force.
Another phase of bloody events followed the 1991 Gulf War. Encouraged by Iraq’s defeat in Kuwait and prodded by the US administration to rebel against Saddam, the Shiite population in the south and the Kurds in the north of Iraq challenged Baghdad’s authority. As no help came from Washington, Saddam’s remnant troops massacred tens of thousands of would be resistance fighters and their families. Thus Saddam remained unchallenged.
The 2001 World Trade Center attacks profoundly influenced the Americans into believing that all anti-US regimes in the world had links with Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Saddam, an old time foe who had been challenging UN arms inspectors, was the prime target for the Bush administration in its global war on terror. US intelligence analysts possibly calculated that Al Qaida’s elusive organization married to Saddam’s purported arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons would pose a lethal threat to Washington and its allies. So in 1993, the US military invaded Iraq.
After facing an array of resistance within Iraq, the US military captured Saddam on December 2003. After a long series of trials marked by the assassination of lawyers and other hindrances, Saddam was finally sentenced to die on November 5, 2006. His appeal was rejected on December 26, 2006 as the verdict was upheld by Iraq’s highest appeals court.
Saddam paid with his life for his hands were bloody. Many opposed Saddam’s hanging while others spoke against the death penalty. Saddam has done many positive things for his country. He modernized his country, gave his people free health and education and oil subsidies, tax beaks, etc. But, he allowed his two sons to go on a killing spree in his country. He himself ordered the killings of his closest aides, his own people and people of his neighbouring countries. After all, he also ordered the murder of his own son-in laws. So how do we remember Saddam? Do we forget his crimes and the suffering he caused to so many families? If we end up supporting dictators and still say we support democratic values, I think it would be a great contradiction.
(From Kathmandu Post)
The day we landed
by Pritam S. Rana
It was six in the morning
as we climbed down the nets
to the old wooden boats rolling fiercely
huddled together in groups of eights.
Our hopes were high for all of us expected
the Turks would simply turn and run
at the sight of our mighty fleet which had blasted
beaches, forts, man and gun.
We went forward to the beaches and the rocks
of Achi Baba and Kilid Bahr defiant and proud
crushing the silence of many peaceful nights.
Black and white smoke obscured beaches, explosions
were loud.
Thunderclaps, machine guns, and whizzing bullets,
the Turks had prepared a nasty welcome.
Men fell screaming as bullets hit chests and limbs
even before they had stepped on the beaches.
Chanting ‘Hail Mary!’ the men went ahead,
jumping out and running forward,
carrying rifle and rucksack, holding on to the helmet,
desperate for cover.
Men may have lost hope as they lay prone on the round
pinned down by enemy fire, shellshocked.
The wounded and the dead littered the ground.
The enemy was well dug-in
while our fellows were scattered about,
Oh, how much we wished for the days in Dublin,
the officers barked to keep our hearts stout.
We prayed for the day to die soon
for the darkness would shield us for the night.
In the cool light of the waxing moon
we began to dig for the next day’s fight.
http://www.spinybabbler.org/publications/display_publications.php?id=creating_verse.htm
It was six in the morning
as we climbed down the nets
to the old wooden boats rolling fiercely
huddled together in groups of eights.
Our hopes were high for all of us expected
the Turks would simply turn and run
at the sight of our mighty fleet which had blasted
beaches, forts, man and gun.
We went forward to the beaches and the rocks
of Achi Baba and Kilid Bahr defiant and proud
crushing the silence of many peaceful nights.
Black and white smoke obscured beaches, explosions
were loud.
Thunderclaps, machine guns, and whizzing bullets,
the Turks had prepared a nasty welcome.
Men fell screaming as bullets hit chests and limbs
even before they had stepped on the beaches.
Chanting ‘Hail Mary!’ the men went ahead,
jumping out and running forward,
carrying rifle and rucksack, holding on to the helmet,
desperate for cover.
Men may have lost hope as they lay prone on the round
pinned down by enemy fire, shellshocked.
The wounded and the dead littered the ground.
The enemy was well dug-in
while our fellows were scattered about,
Oh, how much we wished for the days in Dublin,
the officers barked to keep our hearts stout.
We prayed for the day to die soon
for the darkness would shield us for the night.
In the cool light of the waxing moon
we began to dig for the next day’s fight.
http://www.spinybabbler.org/publications/display_publications.php?id=creating_verse.htm
Achham incident : Another debacle
Kathmandu Saturday February 23, 2002 Falgun 11, 2058.
By PRITAM S RANA
The recent attack by the Maoist rebels in Achham on army, police and civil administration has demonstrated that despite the emergency in effect, the rebels have not yet lost the initiative. It also proves our Prime Minister wrong when he exclaimed that the rebels have been defeated after the imposition of the emergency. The incident also demonstrates the weakness of the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) and the largely ineffective police (vis a vis the Maoist insurgency).
The government’s main fighting arm in countering the armed rebellion is the RNA. During the emergency, the RNA deployed itself to the remote corners of the country, especially the affected areas and arrested thousands of people suspected of rebel ties. It also neutralized by fire those unwilling to surrender. However, the Achham incident has shown that these efforts were simply not sufficient. The rebels simply appear to have relocated to areas where the security presence was the minimum, trained in those areas and struck out somewhere. It is sad that only incidents of this magnitude attracts the attention of the government and causes it to take some meaningful steps.
Whether anyone likes it or not there is a war going on in this country. Who is winning is pretty hard to tell. After the declaration of the emergency, many were convinced it was the government, which was winning. But sadly the present Achham incident has proven that it is too premature to expect government victory. To combat the rebellion, the government should change its political and military tactics. There should be greater measures for security. The security forces have to be further furnished with modern equipments. The mental status of officials and leaders of the security apparatus should be changed.
In the Achham incident, an entire platoon (a unit of up to 40 soldiers) of RNA was wiped out. Hundreds, possibly a thousand or more rebels, did it. Here the culprit was lack of modern automatic weapons. An RNA platoon has only three automatic weapons while a US Army squad (7 soldiers) has seven automatic weapons. This shows that the smaller US unit has greater firepower than a much larger Nepali unit. If all the soldiers in the RNA platoon at Achham had automatic weapons, they would have been able to put out a massive volume of fire at the enemy forcing them to scatter or retreat. The standard RNA rifle is semi-automatic and fires in a slower rate. The Maoists used automatic weapons stolen from their past raid on the Dang barrack.
It has been demonstrated time and again that the Maoists rely on human wave tactics to overwhelm police and Army. The only answer to counter this threat is to rely on a massive firepower. The RNA and the police both have to procure automatic rifles as their individual weapons. The police will have to give up their vintage 0.303 rifles for more modern weapons. The Army must also procure belt fed light machine guns and distribute it to sections, subunits of the platoon. It should do away with its magazine fed light machine gun for they are slow and need frequent changing of magazine.
The RNA should also procure night vision goggles to detect and fight with the rebels at night. The news that some newer Army Mi-17 helicopters having night vision system is promising, but units in the field, the infantry also need night vision goggles. In counter-insurgency operations heavier weapons like the mortar should be given to frontline units rather than held centrally by the battalions. If RNA troops in Achham had mortars, by their fires, they could have well dispersed the rebels at a distance making it much easier to defend.
Nepal is a mountainous and hilly country. Much of the rebel activities are also in such remote and inaccessible terrain. So the primary means of movement is by foot. The RNA and police units have to move on foot to maintain their presence on the ground. But moving on foot is terribly slow process. The alternative expensive means of transport is helicopters. Helicopters due to their vertical take off capability can reach all types of terrain. Helicopter does not even need to land or touch the ground to embark or disembark personnel or other loads. It can simply hover above ground and do the job. The current inventory of helicopters is insufficient. The government should procure a large number of helicopters. It is well known that it is difficult for the government to purchase high cost helicopters. But it should look for other ways. Some time ago US Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Nepal. Nepal should ask for security assistance from US at a time when the US administration is up against fighting terrorism globally. The US provides military aid to many countries in the world.
The helicopter would be highly useful in the current counter-insurgency. Troops can be ferried rapidly from one point to another. Isolated outposts like Achham garrison could receive ammunition, food and other supplies via helicopter. A helicopter can also carry rockets, machine guns and cannon capable of supporting ground troops. Injured troops can also be rapidly evacuated to hospitals and other health facilities. Helicopters can be put to other uses as well: carrying out rescue operations in the aftermath of floods and famines.
The loss of RNA and police lives has also made it imperative that government boost the fighting capability of the security forces. A serious evaluation of the past strategy is to be undertaken. New tactics ought to be considered. If possible the RNA and the police should launch offensives against suspected territories where rebels have sanctuaries and training facilities. It should also invite experts from overseas in form of military advisers from countries like the US who have history of counter-insurgency warfare. In case of the US, it has Special Forces, who are elite troops capable of fighting in difficult terrain against all sorts of opposition. The US Special Forces include the Green Berets, Rangers and Delta Force who have latest experience in Afghanistan. The government through proper US government channels should invite these troops. They could train the RNA and the police and hone them up to the standard to effectively counter the Maoist rebels. Since the Maoists have now been declared terrorists, there should be a common ground between the US and His Majesty’s Government in the global war against terrorism. The war between the Maoists and the government is likely to continue. By burning the district headquarters of Achham, the Maoists have proven themselves to be terrorists and not any political group. Therefore it is imperative for the government to curb the continuing activity of the Maoist by employing new ways and with international assistance.
By PRITAM S RANA
The recent attack by the Maoist rebels in Achham on army, police and civil administration has demonstrated that despite the emergency in effect, the rebels have not yet lost the initiative. It also proves our Prime Minister wrong when he exclaimed that the rebels have been defeated after the imposition of the emergency. The incident also demonstrates the weakness of the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) and the largely ineffective police (vis a vis the Maoist insurgency).
The government’s main fighting arm in countering the armed rebellion is the RNA. During the emergency, the RNA deployed itself to the remote corners of the country, especially the affected areas and arrested thousands of people suspected of rebel ties. It also neutralized by fire those unwilling to surrender. However, the Achham incident has shown that these efforts were simply not sufficient. The rebels simply appear to have relocated to areas where the security presence was the minimum, trained in those areas and struck out somewhere. It is sad that only incidents of this magnitude attracts the attention of the government and causes it to take some meaningful steps.
Whether anyone likes it or not there is a war going on in this country. Who is winning is pretty hard to tell. After the declaration of the emergency, many were convinced it was the government, which was winning. But sadly the present Achham incident has proven that it is too premature to expect government victory. To combat the rebellion, the government should change its political and military tactics. There should be greater measures for security. The security forces have to be further furnished with modern equipments. The mental status of officials and leaders of the security apparatus should be changed.
In the Achham incident, an entire platoon (a unit of up to 40 soldiers) of RNA was wiped out. Hundreds, possibly a thousand or more rebels, did it. Here the culprit was lack of modern automatic weapons. An RNA platoon has only three automatic weapons while a US Army squad (7 soldiers) has seven automatic weapons. This shows that the smaller US unit has greater firepower than a much larger Nepali unit. If all the soldiers in the RNA platoon at Achham had automatic weapons, they would have been able to put out a massive volume of fire at the enemy forcing them to scatter or retreat. The standard RNA rifle is semi-automatic and fires in a slower rate. The Maoists used automatic weapons stolen from their past raid on the Dang barrack.
It has been demonstrated time and again that the Maoists rely on human wave tactics to overwhelm police and Army. The only answer to counter this threat is to rely on a massive firepower. The RNA and the police both have to procure automatic rifles as their individual weapons. The police will have to give up their vintage 0.303 rifles for more modern weapons. The Army must also procure belt fed light machine guns and distribute it to sections, subunits of the platoon. It should do away with its magazine fed light machine gun for they are slow and need frequent changing of magazine.
The RNA should also procure night vision goggles to detect and fight with the rebels at night. The news that some newer Army Mi-17 helicopters having night vision system is promising, but units in the field, the infantry also need night vision goggles. In counter-insurgency operations heavier weapons like the mortar should be given to frontline units rather than held centrally by the battalions. If RNA troops in Achham had mortars, by their fires, they could have well dispersed the rebels at a distance making it much easier to defend.
Nepal is a mountainous and hilly country. Much of the rebel activities are also in such remote and inaccessible terrain. So the primary means of movement is by foot. The RNA and police units have to move on foot to maintain their presence on the ground. But moving on foot is terribly slow process. The alternative expensive means of transport is helicopters. Helicopters due to their vertical take off capability can reach all types of terrain. Helicopter does not even need to land or touch the ground to embark or disembark personnel or other loads. It can simply hover above ground and do the job. The current inventory of helicopters is insufficient. The government should procure a large number of helicopters. It is well known that it is difficult for the government to purchase high cost helicopters. But it should look for other ways. Some time ago US Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Nepal. Nepal should ask for security assistance from US at a time when the US administration is up against fighting terrorism globally. The US provides military aid to many countries in the world.
The helicopter would be highly useful in the current counter-insurgency. Troops can be ferried rapidly from one point to another. Isolated outposts like Achham garrison could receive ammunition, food and other supplies via helicopter. A helicopter can also carry rockets, machine guns and cannon capable of supporting ground troops. Injured troops can also be rapidly evacuated to hospitals and other health facilities. Helicopters can be put to other uses as well: carrying out rescue operations in the aftermath of floods and famines.
The loss of RNA and police lives has also made it imperative that government boost the fighting capability of the security forces. A serious evaluation of the past strategy is to be undertaken. New tactics ought to be considered. If possible the RNA and the police should launch offensives against suspected territories where rebels have sanctuaries and training facilities. It should also invite experts from overseas in form of military advisers from countries like the US who have history of counter-insurgency warfare. In case of the US, it has Special Forces, who are elite troops capable of fighting in difficult terrain against all sorts of opposition. The US Special Forces include the Green Berets, Rangers and Delta Force who have latest experience in Afghanistan. The government through proper US government channels should invite these troops. They could train the RNA and the police and hone them up to the standard to effectively counter the Maoist rebels. Since the Maoists have now been declared terrorists, there should be a common ground between the US and His Majesty’s Government in the global war against terrorism. The war between the Maoists and the government is likely to continue. By burning the district headquarters of Achham, the Maoists have proven themselves to be terrorists and not any political group. Therefore it is imperative for the government to curb the continuing activity of the Maoist by employing new ways and with international assistance.
Gunning down choppers
by Pritam S Rana
An army Mi-17 helicopter crashed on Wednesday night near Malangwa while it was on its way to provide air support to the ground troops engaged in combat against the Maoist rebels. Prachanda issued statement saying his warriors had brought down the army chopper using 'modern and domestic' technology. This has raised some hope for the Maoists as army's airpower was a cause of great concern to them since it had so far remained unvanquished.
Army was quick to claim that its preliminary investigation had found out that technical snag was responsible for the crash and ruled out Prachanda's claim. The army added that the helicopter was armor-plated and thus impervious to any known weapon in rebel arsenal.
Despite all this the army may not enjoy air superiority over the rebels in the long run if the conflict persists for a longer time. There are certain types of anti-aircraft weapons available in the international market. There is no reason to assume that these won't fall into the rebel hands. In fact, the rebel high command must already be in the process of acquiring them.
Although anti-aircraft guns have been around since warplanes first appeared during the World War I, their effectiveness was proportional to the number of deployed guns. This means they were highly inaccurate despite advances in technology of improved sights, airbursting shells, and radar cueing and guidance.
Guided missiles began appearing in the 1950s and 60s. By 1967, the United States and the former USSR developed anti-aircraft missiles small enough to be carried and launched by one man. Although these early weapons were largely ineffective, more modern ones like the infra-red (IR) guided FIM-92 Stinger proved effective at the hands of Afghan rebels.
Afghan resistance groups managed to shoot down many Russian planes. US intelligence agencies believe that many Stingers are left in Afghanistan, some possibly in the hands of terrorists. It is not known if they are still usable.
Like the US Stinger missiles, the Russians too had developed Strela (NATO codename: SA-7 Grail) missile, which they exported widely and many of these are operated by international terrorist groups. The latest versions are said to be very effective and are exported widely.
Known collectively as man portable air defense system (MANPADS), these light and portable missiles pose a great threat not only to the royal regime but also to civil aviation. Terrorist groups are believed to have plans to shoot down airliners of target countries with these. The US government is trying to control the export of such weapons in the international market. But it has not been supported well by other countries.
The possession of MANPADS by Nepal's Maoists would give them ability to take down Royal Nepal Army's helicopters with ease. Nepal's open border with India makes it easier for the rebels to import such sophisticated weapons. Besides, international black marketers can simply air drop arms in Nepali territory. Nepal does not have technology to check its air space violation as demonstrated many months back when some foreign planes entered our air space without informing anyone.
Posted on: 2006-04-09 19:23:43 (Server Time)
An army Mi-17 helicopter crashed on Wednesday night near Malangwa while it was on its way to provide air support to the ground troops engaged in combat against the Maoist rebels. Prachanda issued statement saying his warriors had brought down the army chopper using 'modern and domestic' technology. This has raised some hope for the Maoists as army's airpower was a cause of great concern to them since it had so far remained unvanquished.
Army was quick to claim that its preliminary investigation had found out that technical snag was responsible for the crash and ruled out Prachanda's claim. The army added that the helicopter was armor-plated and thus impervious to any known weapon in rebel arsenal.
Despite all this the army may not enjoy air superiority over the rebels in the long run if the conflict persists for a longer time. There are certain types of anti-aircraft weapons available in the international market. There is no reason to assume that these won't fall into the rebel hands. In fact, the rebel high command must already be in the process of acquiring them.
Although anti-aircraft guns have been around since warplanes first appeared during the World War I, their effectiveness was proportional to the number of deployed guns. This means they were highly inaccurate despite advances in technology of improved sights, airbursting shells, and radar cueing and guidance.
Guided missiles began appearing in the 1950s and 60s. By 1967, the United States and the former USSR developed anti-aircraft missiles small enough to be carried and launched by one man. Although these early weapons were largely ineffective, more modern ones like the infra-red (IR) guided FIM-92 Stinger proved effective at the hands of Afghan rebels.
Afghan resistance groups managed to shoot down many Russian planes. US intelligence agencies believe that many Stingers are left in Afghanistan, some possibly in the hands of terrorists. It is not known if they are still usable.
Like the US Stinger missiles, the Russians too had developed Strela (NATO codename: SA-7 Grail) missile, which they exported widely and many of these are operated by international terrorist groups. The latest versions are said to be very effective and are exported widely.
Known collectively as man portable air defense system (MANPADS), these light and portable missiles pose a great threat not only to the royal regime but also to civil aviation. Terrorist groups are believed to have plans to shoot down airliners of target countries with these. The US government is trying to control the export of such weapons in the international market. But it has not been supported well by other countries.
The possession of MANPADS by Nepal's Maoists would give them ability to take down Royal Nepal Army's helicopters with ease. Nepal's open border with India makes it easier for the rebels to import such sophisticated weapons. Besides, international black marketers can simply air drop arms in Nepali territory. Nepal does not have technology to check its air space violation as demonstrated many months back when some foreign planes entered our air space without informing anyone.
Posted on: 2006-04-09 19:23:43 (Server Time)
The origin of name Pri(t)am
Priam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the manufacturing company, see Priam Corporation.
King Priam killed by Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, detail of an Attic red-figure amphoraIn Greek mythology, Priam (Greek Πρίαμος Priamos) was the king of Troy during the Trojan War and youngest son of Laomedon. Modern scholars derive his name from the Luwian compound Priimuua, which means "exceptionally courageous".[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Marriage and issue
2 Life
3 In later literature
4 In popular culture
5 Family Tree
6 References
[edit] Marriage and issue
See List of King Priam's children
Priam had a number of wives; his first was Arisbe, who had given birth to his son Aesacus, who met a tragic death before the advent of the Trojan War. Priam later divorced her in favor of Hecuba (or Hecebe), daughter of the Phrygian king Dymas. By his various wives and concubines Priam was the father of fifty sons and several daughters. Hector was Priam's eldest son by Hecuba, and heir to the Trojan throne. Paris, another son, was the cause of the Trojan War. Other children of Priam and Hecuba include the prophetic Helenus and Cassandra; eldest daughter Ilione; Deiphobus; Troilus; Polites; Creusa, wife of Aeneas; Laodice, wife of Helicaon; Polyxena, who was slaughtered on the grave of Achilles; and Polydorus, his youngest son.
[edit] Life
Priam was originally called Podarces and he kept himself from being killed by Heracles by giving him a golden veil embroidered by his sister, Hesione. After this, Podarces changed his name to Priam. This is an etymology based on priatos "ransomed"; the actual etymology of the name is probably not Greek, but perhaps Lydian in origin.
When Hector is killed by Achilles, Achilles treats the body with disrespect and refuses to give it back. Zeus sends the god Hermes to escort King Priam, Hector’s father and the ruler of Troy, into the Achaean camp. Priam tearfully pleads with Achilles to take pity on a father bereft of his son and return Hector’s body. He invokes the memory of Achilles’ own father, Peleus. Deeply moved, Achilles finally relents and returns Hector’s corpse to the Trojans. Both sides agree to a temporary truce, and Hector receives a hero’s funeral. Achilles further goes on to give Priam leave to hold a proper funeral for Hector complete with funeral games. He promises that no Greek will engage in combat for 11 days, but on the 12th day of peace, the mighty war between the Greeks and the Trojans would resume.
It has been suggested by Hittite sources, specifically the Manapa-Tarhunta letter that there is historical basis for the archetype of King Priam. The letter describes one Piyama-Radu as a troublesome rebel who overthrew a Hittite client king and thereafter established his own rule over the city of Troy (mentioned as Wilusa in Hittite). There is also mention of an Alaksandu, suggested to be Paris Alexander(King Priam's son from the Iliad), a later ruler of the city of Wilusa who established peace between Wilusa and Hatti(see the Alaksandu treaty).
[edit] In later literature
In the sack of Troy, Priam was brutally murdered by Achilles's son Neoptolemus (also known in the Aeneid as Pyrrhus), in a scene memorialized both in Virgil's Aeneid and Shakespeare's Hamlet. In said stories, Neoptolemus stormed into the palace of Priam and proceeded to make his way to Priam's chamber. After killing Polites, one of the many sons of Priam, Neoptolemus stabbed Priam in the side with his sword and inserted the blade up to the hilt. In Hamlet, Shakespeare particularly mentions Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) pausing before killing Priam (i.e. killing him deliberately in cold blood).
In the Prose Edda, Snorri Sturluson claimed that Priam was the ancestor of a race that migrated to Scandinavia and served as a basis for the Aesir.
[edit] In popular culture
In Dark Mirror, a Star Trek novel taking place in the Mirror Universe, Priam has a much darker fate - as he is begging for the release of Hector's body for the burial rites, Achilles kills him in cold blood.
In Troy: Fall of Kings by David Gemmell, Priam leaps to his death from the Great Tower in Troy.
[edit] Family Tree
Zeus/Jupiter Electra Teucer
Dardanus Batea
Ilus Erichthonius
Tros
Ilus Assaracus
Laomedon Themiste Capys
Priam Anchises Aphrodite/Venus Latinus
Creusa Aeneas Lavinia
Ascanius Silvius
Silvius Aeneas Silvius
Brutus of Britain Latinus Silvius
Alba
Atys
Capys
Capetus
Tiberinus Silvius
Agrippa
Romulus Silvius
Aventinus
Procas
Numitor Amulius
Rhea Silvia Ares/Mars
Hersilia Romulus Remus
Kings of Rome
[edit] References
^ Starke, Frank. "Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend". // Studia Troica, 1997, 7, 447-87.
[hide]v • d • eCharacters in the Iliad
Achaeans Acamas • Achilles • Actor • Adrastus • Agamemnon • Agapenor • Ajax the Greater • Ajax the Lesser • Antilochus • Ascalaphus • Automedon • Balius and Xanthus • Bias • Diomedes • Elephenor • Eudoros • Euryalus • Eurybates • Hecamede • Idomeneus • Machaon • Mecisteus • Medon • Mégês Phyleïdês • Menelaus • Menestheus • Meriones • Nestor • Nireus • Odysseus • Patroclus • Philoctetes • Phoenix • Podarces • Promachus • Protesilaos • Schedius • Stentor • Sthenelus • Talthybius • Teucer • Thersites • Thoas • Thrasymedes • Tlepolemus
Trojans Aeneas • Aesepus • Agenor • Alcathous • Amphimachus • Anchises • Andromache • Antenor • Antiphates • Antiphus • Archelochus • Asius • Asteropaios • Astyanax • Axylus • Briseis • Calchas • Calesius • Cassandra • Chryseis • Chryses • Clytius • Dares Phrygius • Deiphobus • Dolon • Epeius • Epistrophus • Eteoneus • Euneus • Euphemus • Euphorbus • Eurypylus • Glaucus • Gorgythion • Halizones • Hector • Hecuba • Helen • Helenus • Kebriones • Lycaon • Lykomedes • Melanippus • Mentes • Mydon • Mygdon of Phrygia • Othryoneus • Pandarus • Paris • Pedasus • Phorcys • Podalirius • Polites • Poludamas • Polybus • Polydorus • Priam • Pyraechmes • Rhesus of Thrace • Sarpedon • Theano
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priam"
Categories: Characters in Book VI of the Aeneid | Greek mythology | Characters in the Iliad | Trojans | Mythological kings | People of the Trojan WarViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
Copyright and courtesy:- www.wikipedia.org
Notes:-My mother named me after a name common in Punjab. The people of Punjab have had contacts with Greeks (Ionians) and Indo-Scythians.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the manufacturing company, see Priam Corporation.
King Priam killed by Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, detail of an Attic red-figure amphoraIn Greek mythology, Priam (Greek Πρίαμος Priamos) was the king of Troy during the Trojan War and youngest son of Laomedon. Modern scholars derive his name from the Luwian compound Priimuua, which means "exceptionally courageous".[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Marriage and issue
2 Life
3 In later literature
4 In popular culture
5 Family Tree
6 References
[edit] Marriage and issue
See List of King Priam's children
Priam had a number of wives; his first was Arisbe, who had given birth to his son Aesacus, who met a tragic death before the advent of the Trojan War. Priam later divorced her in favor of Hecuba (or Hecebe), daughter of the Phrygian king Dymas. By his various wives and concubines Priam was the father of fifty sons and several daughters. Hector was Priam's eldest son by Hecuba, and heir to the Trojan throne. Paris, another son, was the cause of the Trojan War. Other children of Priam and Hecuba include the prophetic Helenus and Cassandra; eldest daughter Ilione; Deiphobus; Troilus; Polites; Creusa, wife of Aeneas; Laodice, wife of Helicaon; Polyxena, who was slaughtered on the grave of Achilles; and Polydorus, his youngest son.
[edit] Life
Priam was originally called Podarces and he kept himself from being killed by Heracles by giving him a golden veil embroidered by his sister, Hesione. After this, Podarces changed his name to Priam. This is an etymology based on priatos "ransomed"; the actual etymology of the name is probably not Greek, but perhaps Lydian in origin.
When Hector is killed by Achilles, Achilles treats the body with disrespect and refuses to give it back. Zeus sends the god Hermes to escort King Priam, Hector’s father and the ruler of Troy, into the Achaean camp. Priam tearfully pleads with Achilles to take pity on a father bereft of his son and return Hector’s body. He invokes the memory of Achilles’ own father, Peleus. Deeply moved, Achilles finally relents and returns Hector’s corpse to the Trojans. Both sides agree to a temporary truce, and Hector receives a hero’s funeral. Achilles further goes on to give Priam leave to hold a proper funeral for Hector complete with funeral games. He promises that no Greek will engage in combat for 11 days, but on the 12th day of peace, the mighty war between the Greeks and the Trojans would resume.
It has been suggested by Hittite sources, specifically the Manapa-Tarhunta letter that there is historical basis for the archetype of King Priam. The letter describes one Piyama-Radu as a troublesome rebel who overthrew a Hittite client king and thereafter established his own rule over the city of Troy (mentioned as Wilusa in Hittite). There is also mention of an Alaksandu, suggested to be Paris Alexander(King Priam's son from the Iliad), a later ruler of the city of Wilusa who established peace between Wilusa and Hatti(see the Alaksandu treaty).
[edit] In later literature
In the sack of Troy, Priam was brutally murdered by Achilles's son Neoptolemus (also known in the Aeneid as Pyrrhus), in a scene memorialized both in Virgil's Aeneid and Shakespeare's Hamlet. In said stories, Neoptolemus stormed into the palace of Priam and proceeded to make his way to Priam's chamber. After killing Polites, one of the many sons of Priam, Neoptolemus stabbed Priam in the side with his sword and inserted the blade up to the hilt. In Hamlet, Shakespeare particularly mentions Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) pausing before killing Priam (i.e. killing him deliberately in cold blood).
In the Prose Edda, Snorri Sturluson claimed that Priam was the ancestor of a race that migrated to Scandinavia and served as a basis for the Aesir.
[edit] In popular culture
In Dark Mirror, a Star Trek novel taking place in the Mirror Universe, Priam has a much darker fate - as he is begging for the release of Hector's body for the burial rites, Achilles kills him in cold blood.
In Troy: Fall of Kings by David Gemmell, Priam leaps to his death from the Great Tower in Troy.
[edit] Family Tree
Zeus/Jupiter Electra Teucer
Dardanus Batea
Ilus Erichthonius
Tros
Ilus Assaracus
Laomedon Themiste Capys
Priam Anchises Aphrodite/Venus Latinus
Creusa Aeneas Lavinia
Ascanius Silvius
Silvius Aeneas Silvius
Brutus of Britain Latinus Silvius
Alba
Atys
Capys
Capetus
Tiberinus Silvius
Agrippa
Romulus Silvius
Aventinus
Procas
Numitor Amulius
Rhea Silvia Ares/Mars
Hersilia Romulus Remus
Kings of Rome
[edit] References
^ Starke, Frank. "Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend". // Studia Troica, 1997, 7, 447-87.
[hide]v • d • eCharacters in the Iliad
Achaeans Acamas • Achilles • Actor • Adrastus • Agamemnon • Agapenor • Ajax the Greater • Ajax the Lesser • Antilochus • Ascalaphus • Automedon • Balius and Xanthus • Bias • Diomedes • Elephenor • Eudoros • Euryalus • Eurybates • Hecamede • Idomeneus • Machaon • Mecisteus • Medon • Mégês Phyleïdês • Menelaus • Menestheus • Meriones • Nestor • Nireus • Odysseus • Patroclus • Philoctetes • Phoenix • Podarces • Promachus • Protesilaos • Schedius • Stentor • Sthenelus • Talthybius • Teucer • Thersites • Thoas • Thrasymedes • Tlepolemus
Trojans Aeneas • Aesepus • Agenor • Alcathous • Amphimachus • Anchises • Andromache • Antenor • Antiphates • Antiphus • Archelochus • Asius • Asteropaios • Astyanax • Axylus • Briseis • Calchas • Calesius • Cassandra • Chryseis • Chryses • Clytius • Dares Phrygius • Deiphobus • Dolon • Epeius • Epistrophus • Eteoneus • Euneus • Euphemus • Euphorbus • Eurypylus • Glaucus • Gorgythion • Halizones • Hector • Hecuba • Helen • Helenus • Kebriones • Lycaon • Lykomedes • Melanippus • Mentes • Mydon • Mygdon of Phrygia • Othryoneus • Pandarus • Paris • Pedasus • Phorcys • Podalirius • Polites • Poludamas • Polybus • Polydorus • Priam • Pyraechmes • Rhesus of Thrace • Sarpedon • Theano
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priam"
Categories: Characters in Book VI of the Aeneid | Greek mythology | Characters in the Iliad | Trojans | Mythological kings | People of the Trojan WarViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
Copyright and courtesy:- www.wikipedia.org
Notes:-My mother named me after a name common in Punjab. The people of Punjab have had contacts with Greeks (Ionians) and Indo-Scythians.
Binayak Rana's song
Boli rahane hridayako,
Chari ladi kunni ke bho
Pyaro ramro pinjada nai
Panchhi bina ritto bho.
The bhajan reminds me of serene life in Nepal.
Chari ladi kunni ke bho
Pyaro ramro pinjada nai
Panchhi bina ritto bho.
The bhajan reminds me of serene life in Nepal.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Valley anecdotes
As i jumped out of GOP HQ in Hayvenhurst, San Fernando, I came across a couple of older citizens. They talked about health and life. And then, I took out my Digital Fortress and hit a bump on the word "escrow."
It had something to do with money and credit and debt. I gotta focus on that word. I could not stop giggling.
It had something to do with money and credit and debt. I gotta focus on that word. I could not stop giggling.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Tropic treat for Summer
Set in a lush tropical forest of Vietnam, a band of gung ho moviemen encounter unforseen share of trouble. While shooting a classic war movie, an actor playing haggard war veteran "Four Leaf" Tayback (Nick Nolte) and a set hand are stuck in a remote location. Their chopper, a Huey, has been apparently shot down.
Studio exec Les Grossman, played by a savvy Tom Cruise, is admant for success. To Grossman's nightmare, the motley crew bumps into a criminal outfit, in fact a deadly insurgents producing narcotics in the Iron Triangle. As soon as they land into a previously unforeseen hostile territory, the team loses its self styled leader to a landmine.
Cocky Tug Speedman (Ben Stiller) and Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) have a constant clash of personality and ego problem, despite the humor. A particularly funny episode is when Tayback declares he's just a lowly guy and not a veteran he is supposed to play.
The plot hits catharsis as Speedman is captured while trying to "rescue" Tayback.
The kid insurgent depicts the plight of third world child soldiers. The kid is vicious. Speedman sounds crazy as he decides to stay back to perhaps sermonize the criminals, a typical anecdote for trying to serve American values.
As Grossman refuses to negotiate with a ransom demand for Speedman and threatens "massacre", and mocks the UN, the film elevates to comical heights.
Provides intense action. Star studded cast and graphic scenes makes the movie a must watch. A true entertainment for those seeking to escape the scorching California sun. Good value for money.
Studio exec Les Grossman, played by a savvy Tom Cruise, is admant for success. To Grossman's nightmare, the motley crew bumps into a criminal outfit, in fact a deadly insurgents producing narcotics in the Iron Triangle. As soon as they land into a previously unforeseen hostile territory, the team loses its self styled leader to a landmine.
Cocky Tug Speedman (Ben Stiller) and Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) have a constant clash of personality and ego problem, despite the humor. A particularly funny episode is when Tayback declares he's just a lowly guy and not a veteran he is supposed to play.
The plot hits catharsis as Speedman is captured while trying to "rescue" Tayback.
The kid insurgent depicts the plight of third world child soldiers. The kid is vicious. Speedman sounds crazy as he decides to stay back to perhaps sermonize the criminals, a typical anecdote for trying to serve American values.
As Grossman refuses to negotiate with a ransom demand for Speedman and threatens "massacre", and mocks the UN, the film elevates to comical heights.
Provides intense action. Star studded cast and graphic scenes makes the movie a must watch. A true entertainment for those seeking to escape the scorching California sun. Good value for money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
