Climate changing at 'unprecedented' rate: UN
March 21, 2016
ricky lin 1 second
Indeed, World will end by 小三灾 ：-
(1) Climatic conditions, natural disasters, tsunami, meteorite, black hole etc.
(2) War - nuclear war, big conventional war, etc (World 3 hotspots)
(3) Epidemic - diseases, virus, bacteria etc.
ricky lin 1 second
(1) The first one - related to natural disasters - refer to karma associated with 4 Great Physical Elements - harming of natural environment that sustain human lives and other lives.
(2) The 2nd one - related to human mutual killings - refer to karma associated with 5 Mental Aggregates - mutual harming of human beings.
(3) The 3rd one - related to human killings of lower realm beings - refer to karma associated with 5 Mental Aggregates - harming of lower realms.
ricky lin 1 second
The 小三灾 - is the karma (consequences, outcome) associated with 3 evil roots of human beings on Earth:-
(1) Hatred
(2) Greed, Strong attachment to Self (Selfishness, Self-Centred)
(3) Ignorance of Universal Law
ricky l10 seconds ago
If a person associated with Hitler attributes arise ----- it will manifest the 3 evil roots of human :-
(1) Hatred
(2) Greed, Strong attachment to Self (Selfishness, Self-Centred)
(3) Ignorance of Universal Law
---- and this may bring forward the 小三灾 - and destroy the World.
ricky lin 1 second
Just hope that Hitler attributes will not arise.
The World is fraught with danger already - and only skillful management of World affairs is vital to maintain World equilibrium to maintain World Peace and World Prosperity.
Not one that will trigger and ruffle World Peace and plummet World Economy.
All the Countries in the World have fate and fortune - which are tightly interlocked and if one SuperPower is mismanaged --- all the Countries fate and fortune will fall like dominoes.
ricky lin 1 second
When we "see" the 3 evil human attributes - collapsing inwards (like the mercedes benz insignia) ---- it will be the Hitler attributes manifesting ---- and it will trigger the 小三灾 - the "end of the world".
The 3 evil human attributes that collapse inwards are:-
(1) Hatred of others (mutually exclusive), other than own race
(2) Greed, strong attachment to self, self-centred, selfishness
(3) Ignorance of Universal Law
---- all these are sign of Hitler attributes - 3 evil human attributes that collapse inwards --- and trigger 3 small catastrophes (小三灾).
Donald Trump phenomenon - is slowly manifesting this attributes.
ricky lin 1 second
Eg. Donald pettiness on S Korea and Japan --- may lead to S Korea and Japan - develop their own nuclear weapons as well as many US allies developing their own nuclear weapons and US adversaries developing more nuclear weapons ---- that lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons ---- and the whole World lost control - leading to World demise.
Donald's foreign affairs cannot lah.
ricky lin 1 second
And when that happen will Donald think US will be safe?
It means even smaller Countries who are adversaries of US - can shoot nuclear missiles into US and end it --- and how many nuclear missiles can US intercept?
Donald Presidency will end US faster and will end the World faster ----- because Donald 3 evil roots of human ---- will led him to come out with many flaw policies that will not make US great but US wrong --- and trigger 小三灾 - the "end of the world".
ricky lin 1 second
And when this happen, not sure whether the World can be saved or not?
It maybe too late.
Thus Donald is a too dangerous a man to be the President of USA.
US and the World may go down.
ricky lnow
And the best part is, Donald just announced to the Jews that he is going to dismantle the Iran nuclear deal if he is a President.
And Iran moderates will fall and Iran hardliners will come out - develop nuclear missiles and shoot into US and Israel --- bringing fast demise to US and the World.
Does Donald knows what he is doing?
Revolutionary Guards look to play bigger role in Iran's economy
A senior member of Iran's Revolutionary Guards urged the government on Tuesday to follow its supreme leader's vision for a self-reliant economy and said the Guards wanted to play a bigger role to make that happen.
- Posted 22 Mar 2016 19:15
- Updated 22 Mar 2016 20:35
DUBAI: A senior member of Iran's Revolutionary Guards urged the government on Tuesday to follow its supreme leader's vision for a self-reliant economy and said the Guards wanted to play a bigger role to make that happen.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's most powerful figure, called for a "resistance economy" on Sunday, saying U.S. policies to restrict business with Iran had undermined any economic benefits of international sanctions being lifted in January.
His comments presented a challenge to President Hassan Rouhani, the chief architect of last year's nuclear deal that led to sanctions relief, who has tried since that accord to attract foreign investment and open Iran's markets.
"The main audience for (Khamenei's concept of) the resistance economy is the government," Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, deputy joint chief of staff of the armed forces was quoted as saying by Fars news agency.
Jazayeri is a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), a powerful faction that controls a business empire as well as elite armed forces. Its economic interests could be threatened by increased competition from abroad.
"The armed forces are ready to play a significant role in the resistance economy and implementing the supreme leader's suggestions," he said.
Jazayeri added that Rouhani should see the Guards' achievements in creating advanced ballistic missiles as an economic blueprint and evidence that Iran did not need foreign investment to succeed.
Any increase in the IRGC's economic footprint could make Iran a riskier market for foreign investors, as many of its members and front companies remain under U.S. sanctions on Iran's defence industries and alleged support for what Washington sees as "acts of terrorism".
ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
In a clear reaction to Jazayeri's comments, Iranian Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri said the government was not the audience for Khamenei's speech.
"All state bodies were the audience ... No person, faction or organisation should interpret 'resistance economy' as they want," he was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.
Khamenei called the Iranian new year, which began on Sunday, "the year of the Resistance Economy: Action and Implementation", implying that he expected the government to do more to insulate the economy from possible sanctions or hostile foreign activity.
In a video message on the same day, Rouhani said further engagement with other countries was the key to economic growth, a view that has put him increasingly at odds with Khamenei, who outranks him.
Reiterating his remarks, Rouhani said on Tuesday that he had been seeking a strong economy since his election in 2013 and "constructive engagement with the world" was the main part of that policy.
His chief of staff Mohammad Nahavandian also said on the same day that opening Iran to foreign investment would in fact help to build a "resistance economy".
"To increase the resistance of Iran's economy, we should expand ties with neighbouring countries and the world," Nahavandian was quoted as saying IRNA.
"If Iran is an active member of international organisations, the chance of getting hit by new sanctions and economic restrictions will be limited," he added.
(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin; Editing by Sam Wilkin and Tom Heneghan)
- Reuters
ricky lnow
Many Countries are looking towards to US for leadership to maintain World Order.
Donald will do exactly the reverse.
He will bring World Disorder and may even be World Demise.
Donald Trump's Asia Policy Would be a Disaster
1.6k
18
74
1.7k Shares
Try to imagine what would happen if Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump decided U.S. policy toward Asia. U.S. presidential elections almost never hinge on foreign policy, but it’s worth pondering how a Trump administration might impact the world’s wealthiest and most populous region given his seeming nationalist-mercantilist philosophy of governance and transactional view of foreign policy. What would Asia become if Trump became president? In short: it would be a disaster.
Although he gives us only occasional glimpses via impolitic musings, we know several things about Trump’s orientation toward foreign policy, and Asia in particular. He believes in having a large, modern, and capable military. He believes in wielding the threat of force but not so much in the use of it. And he believes allies—especially Japan and South Korea—free-ride on U.S. commitments, which he claims has two consequences. One is that Americans are suckers for maintaining a forward military presence when they don’t need to; the other is that these allies are “eating our lunch” in trade imbalances and economic growth because they don’t spend enough on their own defense.
From these glimpses we can deduce a few major implications for Asia policy. All of them are disastrous.
First, Trump would likely withdraw the U.S. military from Asia and instead beef up a garrison force on U.S. territory, which would have enormous strategic consequences. Forward military presence does more than just assure allies and deter aggressors. It enables the United States to respond quickly to a crisis wherever it may be. If U.S. forces had to fly and sail from the continental United States to respond when its interests were threatened, it would show up to everything a day late and a dollar short. One of the central insights from deterrence literature has been that it’s much harder to reverse an action once taken than preventing the action in the first place. Yet if the United States is slow to deploy because of sheer distance, then every expansionist or revisionist actor in the international system would be able to present us with faits accompli. This means that if bad guys are conducting preventive strikes, launching guerrilla wars, conquering territory, or controlling sea lanes near them, the United States would either have to simply acquiesce, or challenge them after they’ve secured themselves and attempt to reverse their achievements at great cost.
Second, by eliminating U.S. forward presence in Asia, a Trump administration military would willingly give up escalation control. Although far from an exact science, escalation control requires being able to engage an adversary in a crisis or conflict without resorting to total annihilation or nuclear war. The total war approach was already tried in the form of President Eisenhower’s massive retaliation doctrine in the 1950s, which planted the seeds of a nuclear-armed China and North Korea, catalyzed the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, and left the United States ill-equipped to deal with real-world crises and low-intensity conflict, as repeatedly occurred with China in the 1950s. Even worse, if your solution to every military problem—no matter how small—is nuclear annihilation, other countries will eventually stop believing your threats or you’ll be forced to make good on that nuclear annihilation promise. Either outcome would be catastrophic.
As a corollary, if U.S. forces are based at home, then every crisis or conflict would represent a 21st century version of the massive retaliation doctrine because no tailored solutions, deterrence forces, or small troop deployments would be possible, because they’d have to first navigate across the Pacific Ocean to be relevant, by which time the outcome of a crisis or conflict may already be decided. A home-based U.S. force could only influence international outcomes by threatening massive retribution, which would immediately escalate any situation to an unacceptable and irresponsible level. As China seeks dominion over the South China Sea—through which $5 trillion of trade passes each year—a U.S. military absent from the region will have no sway over events. And if China succeeds in establishing de facto military domination of the South China Sea, it will be the United States, alongside allies and partners, who will lose freedom of navigation rights and the ability to engage in global commerce unencumbered.
Finally, Trump’s stance toward allies like Japan and South Korea would not simply wreck those alliances, but destabilize Northeast Asia’s precarious balance. Without a U.S. alliance, both states are dramatically more likely to develop their own nuclear weapons, which destroys the possibility of preserving a nuclear nonproliferation regime, and consequently would make it impossible to prevent other determined states, like Iran, from going nuclear. And with the United States walking away from its clear commitments to Japan and South Korea, there would be no credible prospect of the United States coming to the aid of Taiwan, where U.S. commitments are more ambiguous. China’s determination to absorb Taiwan—even against the latter’s will—would face dramatically fewer inhibitions if China knew Taiwan would not have U.S. backing.
More than simply abandoning Japan, Trump seems to indicate we would enter a confrontational phase in U.S.-Japan relations. He blames Japan for not spending enough on defense, but Japan’s closest neighbors have long been wary of a militarily “normal” Japan. Without the United States, moreover, a Japan with a large and advanced military may push South Korea—whose diplomatic relations with Japan have long been tense—into alignment with China. And although Trump makes a bogeyman out of U.S. trade imbalances with Japan, he overlooks the fact that U.S. trade relations with Japan benefit the United States; Toyota, for example, manufactures cars for the U.S. market in many low-income areas in the United States, providing tens of thousands of jobs for Americans. Trade imbalances are an abstraction; jobs are real.
Of South Korea, Trump asks, “…how long will we go on defending South Korea from North Korea without payment?” Never mind that South Korea does share the cost of stationing U.S. troops in South Korea, that the South does contribute to U.S. security interests around the world, or that the anti-Americanism in North Korean identity means we’re defending ourselves from North Korea in addition to the South. Because we maintain a military presence in South Korea, deterrence has prevailed. Yet Trump says, “…the young man from North Korea starts acting up…we immediately get our ships going. We get our aircraft. We get nothing for this.” Avoiding large-scale casualties or chemical warfare is not “nothing;” it’s peace, however precarious. Perhaps Trump would prefer to see a second Korean War?
Trump’s slogan is “Make America great again.” But willfully ceding U.S. global leadership isn’t greatness. Abandoning the global liberal order to others isn’t greatness. Allowing large-scale atrocities or the end of a generation of peace in Asia when you have the ability to prevent it isn’t greatness. And neither is reneging on U.S. commitments. Far from being “great,” Trump’s Asia policy is morally, economically, and strategically unconscionable.
No comments:
Post a Comment