gk today current affairs app download

 gk today current affairs app download

gk today current affairs app download published this article Shia clerics have entrenched themselves in the local ways and traditions. These clerics will not disappear as a concern anytime soon. Domestic rulers in ivory towers could not rid themselves of Shia clergy as a potent social influence foreign soldiers definitely will not be able to accomplish that. With cognizance of the broad historical context of Iran description and analysis of the current nuclear crisis with Iran is now proper. In August 2002 an Iranian dissident movement accused the theocratic government of operating in the city of Natanz a uranium enrichment facility and in the city of Arak a heavy water plant. In December 2002 while on its weapons of mass destruction allegations binge the United States proclaimed Irans guilt of across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Unlike with Iraq American declarations about Iran turned out to be at least partially true. The IAEA examined Arak and Natanz in February 2003 and it declared a few months later Iran had broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. [13] Iran promised the European Union Three—Germany France and Britain who had taken the lead in diplomacy with Iran—in October 2003 it would cease all research into the enrichment of uranium an essential procedure in constructing both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. That December Iran pledged it would cooperate with surprise inspections of its nuclear installations. Iran did not keep that oath though as the IAEA chastised Iran in June 2004 for insufficient cooperation. To strike back Iran announced it would start researching and making centrifuges vital to uranium enrichment again. But Iran reversed course several months later in November 2004 assuring the Europeans it would halt all nuclear fuel processing and reprocessing work. Iranian President Mohammed Khatami seemed to negate this the next year in February 2005 when he said no Iranian government would surrender Irans right to nuclear technology.[14] The frothing hard-liner Ahmadinejad replaced the moderate Khatami in the middle of 2005.[15] With Ahmadinejad as its spokesman Iran dropped all pretense of cooperating with the Europeans. On September 15 2005 Ahmadinejad told the world his country would spread nuclear technology throughout the Muslim world. Nearly four months later on January 1 2006 Iran revealed it had discovered how to extract uranium from ore. Ten days later on January 10 Iran restarted its research on nuclear fuel. This finally compelled the Europeans to give up their efforts to negotiate. They recommended the United Nations Security Council take up the matter. On January 13 Iran threatened to toss the IAEA out of the country if the Security Council itself involved itself in the situation. Regardless in a rare occurrence of agreement between the United States Germany France Britain China and Russia all six nations wanted the Security Council to take action.[16] This produced a Security Council resolution on March 29 demanded Iran totally cooperate with the IAEA within 30 days. The Security Councils declaration was not legally binding however because Russia and China were reluctant to impose sanctions or start war in the event of Iranian noncompliance.[17] Afterward on April 11 Ahmadinejad said Iran had learned how to enrich the uranium after they had extracted it. The Iranian Atomic Energy Organization announced the Natanz facility had accomplished the feat. Because of this on April 28 the IAEA declared Iran in defiance of the March 29 Security Council requests.[18] That is where the nuclear confrontation with Iran stands now. <b>II. Problem Statement</b> Iran a barbaric theocracy whose president has wished for Israels destruction and indicated he would disseminate nuclear technology has been researching such technology. The Iranian government claims it only wants peaceful nuclear energy. (Plenty of oil sits beneath Iran and lots of desert that could accommodate solar collectors lies across the country. One could wonder why Iran would need nuclear technology for energy production.) The United States and its diplomatic partners worry Iran desires nuclear weapons for its own use and to give to terrorists. Hence the United States wants Iran to end its nuclear program. gk today current affairs app download

 gk today current affairs app download

gk today current affairs august 2019

 gk today current affairs august 2019

gk today current affairs august 2019 A Policy Options—Diplomatic (Political The United States has been seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis with Iran for the past several years. Washington D.C. has not negotiated directly with Tehran with which Washington has no diplomatic relations. Instead the administration of American President George W. Bush stepped back to let Britain France and Germany attempt to convince Iran to terminate its nuclear program. This constitutes an exception to normal American foreign policy the US government especially under Bush has preferred to address what it perceives to be security threats by itself or as a leader of an alliance. Relying completely on other countries in this instance means the US government is not in ultimate control of what happens. If the president says jump the leader of another country will not necessarily say how high. Still with the American commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq the US government might not have wanted to stretch itself further by tackling the Iranian problem. The Europeans did not accomplish their objective. Iran continued its nuclear research while not taking its negotiations with Europe seriously. Iran was always ready to go with another nuclear transgression for any imagined slight. Eventually the Europeans conceded defeat so the Security Council has now taken charge of the issue. The Security Council has not had any more success than the Europeans did alone so far though. It has only managed a toothless resolution on March 29 that Iran ignored altogether. Furthermore nearly a month after the Security Council issued its commands Iranian President Ahmadinejad speechified regarding the Security Council The Iranian nation wont give a damn about such useless resolutions… Today they want to force us to give up our way through threats and sanctions but those who resort to language of coercion should know that nuclear energy is a national demand and by the grace of God today Iran is a nuclear country.[19] UN diplomacy does not appear to be a winning strategy. The US could engage with Iran directly but that would necessitate recognizing Irans government and opening diplomatic relations with it. Washington would be averse to doing that especially with Ahmadinejad occupying the Iranian presidency. Besides which Iran already knows the might of the United States forms the backbone of every diplomatic maneuver so far yet Iran does not seem to care. For the US to open direct negotiations with Iran would therefore not help. All it would do is give Iran the status of being a nation the US has deemed fit for recognition in exchange for nothing which would bolster Iran and humiliate the United States. <b>III. B Policy Options—Economic</b> In an effort to fabricate a compromise whereby Iran could have nuclear energy but the rest of the world could feel safe Iran was not gaining dangerous nuclear know-how Russia offered to enrich uranium for Iran on Russias own soil and then ship the uranium back to Iran. Nothing has come of this Russian initiative though.[20] Iran has apparently decided it wants to enrich uranium itself. If Iran does not start cooperating with the United Nations the Security Council could meet again and insist Iran alter course for international peace and security. Iranian noncompliance with such a resolution would permit the Security Council to enact economic sanctions against Iran. China and Russia however have been squeamish about such a move.[21] Also implementing broad economic sanctions against Iran would constrict or prevent the flow of oil out of that country. As the world grapples with high oil prices across-the-board sanctions could damage everyones economy even as Iran hurts. The situation could be like Thomas Jeffersons embargo of Britain and France all over again. Perhaps sanctions could leave alone oil trade with Iran that would have a better chance of sticking. Because oil is already the lifeblood of Irans economy and because oil would become more important with trade in everything else forbidden Iran could not afford to cut off oil supplies or fiddle with prices too much. So the rest of the world would not hurt for oil although Iran would still suffer the pain of sanctions. If Iran continues its intransigence Russia and China might support limited sanctions as they would not threaten oil supplies although a lot of skilled diplomacy would be necessary. <b>III. C Policy Options—Military</b> In the April 17 2006 issue of The New Yorker Seymour Hersh unveils to the American people secret plans the US government has for war with Iran. The end objective of the war would be the overthrow of the theocracy. To achieve this the US military would bomb Iran extensively which planners hope would embarrass the Iranian government thereby inspiring the Iranian citizenry to revolt and depose the mullahs. Concurrently the American military would drop bunker-buster tactical nukes on Iranian nuclear facilities such as the one at Natanz.[22] That is one of the most idiotic plans in the history of military strategy. The American dream of happy Iraqis valiantly rising against their oppressors and eagerly embracing regime change Washington would like turned out to be fantasy. No reason exists to believe the same American dream would come true in Iran. Two hundred years of Western imperialism in Iran has ensured Iranian revulsion of foreign influence. Most Iranians would stick by their own people rather than act as foreigners attacking their home want. The Shia clergy who have centuries-old traditional claims to Iranian hearts and not bomb-happy Americans would find the most supporters in Iran. Because of this not even Iranian opposition groups want American intervention believing it would damage their cause.[23] Plus targeted American strikes against Iranian nuclear infrastructure could likely fail. The Iranians have had the Israeli destruction of Iraqs French-supplied nuclear reactor at Osirak as well as hundreds of American and British sorties across Iraq in the 1990s from which to learn. They protected against bombing runs by constructing some of their nuclear installations underground. In addition the US government does not know the locations of a few of Irans important nuclear assets. A bombing campaign could miss them.[24] After the United States gained nothing from starting a war Iran could inflict grievous costs in retaliation. The Shia Iranians through shared faith with Shia Iraqis command enormous influence with them. Many more Shia Iraqis than who are insurgents now could become such at the urging of their Shia brethren in Iran. Iranian troops could start attacking American soldiers in Iraq. Iran could even capture parts of Iraq. One Pentagon affiliate has said The Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck. Hezbollah could come out of hibernation as well attacking Israel and American interests in the Middle East.[25] And deciding it has nothing to lose Iran could use its oil as an economic weapon to harm Western economies. Sometimes the benefits of military action can outweigh horrendous consequences. World War II stands as the most powerful demonstration of that truth. Attacking Iran as the military plans in Hershs article suggest would not however yield sufficient gains to offset the damage to American interests and operations or to justify the enormous loss of life in Iran Iraq and Israel (if not more countries). <b>IV. Policy Recommendation</b> I have not seen any policy or strategy under consideration of which I approve so I will devise my own. The United States and Europe should continue pursuing diplomatic solutions to the Iranian nuclear issue. I do not think Iran would capitulate to such an approach though. Iranians with reason loathe foreign attempts to influence their politics and control their resources. As a result I do not believe Iran will voluntarily strike a deal with anyone to limit or eliminate a national program it sees as its right. Meddlesome foreigners can go to hell. Before I outline my proposal I must state I do not believe Iran will use nuclear weapons offensively if it learns how to make them. Any obvious first use of nuclear weapons on Irans part would invite nuclear retaliation from Israel and the United States and possibly from France and Britain. Passing nuclear weapons off to terrorists would not be a viable option for Iran either because nuclear forensics could trace a bombs fissile material back to its source.[26] One might say the so-called Mad Mullahs are just that—mad—but Irans lack of military aggressiveness over the past 20 years with trigger-happy Americans and Israelis nearby argues against that. Irans theocrats are evil but not demonstrably insane or suicidal. They would place their own collective survival above global Islamist revolution. If nothing else a dead revolutionary movement cannot advance its cause. With Irans rationality in mind I propose what I call neo-containment. In the neo-containment framework if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons the United Nations would place limited sanctions as I described above on Iran. Food water and medicine for the Iranian people in addition to oil would be the only exemptions to the sanctions. Limited sanctions would prevent mass starvation and famine while squeezing the Iranian economy. Militarily the United States would officially point nuclear missiles at Iran and promise it will suffer the missiles fury if it does use nuclear weapons on anyone. If Iran does not want to struggle under sanctions and squirm under nuclear threat Iran could dismantle its nuclear weapons and relinquish the capability to create more. If that does not happen then Irans economic and technological capabilities can wilt under sanctions and its psyche can suffer from knowing the worlds sole remaining superpower with an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons might use those weapons on Iran annihilating it. Iran could never build enough nuclear weapons to combat that threat. From these economic and military coercive devices frustration and fear could build in the Iranian population undermining cultural health and thereby national cohesion. To try to ensure the resulting anger flows to the Iranian government and not the United States the American government should utilize soft power resources. Washington should emphasize its foe is the theocracy of Iran not its people. The US should publicly appear not to be interfering with Iran internally but to be sitting back after promising to recognize Iran officially and extend economic and technological assistance to Iran if the Iranians overthrow their government. Covertly Americans should spread through Muslim networks messages about the benefits of disarmament and democracy and the evils of nuclear-intent mullahs. When Iranians receive these messages they should see them as coming from Muslim brothers not American imperialists. To complement this tactic Iranian expatriates who know the positives of republican government and the negatives of Shia theocracy could tell their stories to the world. This could all inspire hope and desire within Iranians for something better than lives of terror under a repressive theocracy. Containment worked against the Soviet Union. It took 40 years to do its job but the United States avoided a devastating war that would have left the world a worse place than it is now. I believe the similar strategy I described above would handle Iran just as adeptly. Indeed neo-containment could perform even better. Iran could never threaten the United States with nuclear extinction so Americans would not have to live with the dread of that again. Since Iran would be incapable of wiping out either the American people or their nuclear capability no matter what the Iranian government would be insane to employ nuclear weapons in anything other than clear self-defense. So Americans need not fear even the loss of a city. The risk of such an attack would not be zero because Irans government could theoretically defy rationality. But the danger would be minimal and it would not be anything we do not already face from China Pakistan or Russia. gk today current affairs august 2019

 gk today current affairs august 2019

banking services chronicle book

 banking services chronicle book

banking services chronicle book  Published this article  But the poor are now falling into the trap of bad food. The study also found that conversely it was the more socio-economically advanced rural areas that were falling prey to diabetes. It is an epidemic that is in a state of transition it noted. With such large numbers of poor in urban areas and such large numbers of the getting-rich in rural areas this can easily get out of hand. We are going from lack of food or malnutrition to overnutrition because of bad food. This is a transition that we must avoid. The fact is that India has what can only be described as a double burden of diseases. We have the diseases of the poor—everything from malnutrition to cholera. But we also have the diseases of the rich—cancer and diabetes. banking services chronicle book

banking services chronicle march 2021  Published this article  Worse as the ICMR study shows the poor who can illafford the diseases of the rich are now afflicted by them. But this is where the policy of prevention must kick in. We know that these diseases—called non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by the health community—are connected to our lifestyles. What do we eat? What air do we breathe? And what environment we live in? These are part of the package of toxic development. A model of development where we first pollute and then think of cleaning up. A model where we first industrialisechemicalise our food eat unhealthy junk and then think of going to the gym to exercise or eat organic. But the question is can we not avoid the transition? Can we not go from being poor but unhealthy to being rich and healthy? Why should we inherit the diseases of a lifestyle that can be so easily avoided? This is where change is essential. This is where we need to make crucial linkages—between our health and the health of the environment. Today it is polluted water which is visible in the death of our rivers. banking services chronicle march 2021

banking services chronicle book

banking services chronicle reasoning book

 banking services chronicle reasoning book 

banking services chronicle reasoning book  Published this article  In June 2017 the British medical journal The Lancet published a review of the prevalence of diabetes in 15 states of India. This study by a group of medical practitioners funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) had worrying numbers. It found that while some 7 per cent people in India (based on 15 states data) had diabetes the prevalence of pre-diabetes (early signs particularly elevated blood sugar levels) was a staggering 10-15 per cent depending on the criterion used. This is no small health burden on a developing country. Their conclusion is we are undergoing an epidemiological transition. States/UTs with higher GDP— Gujarat Maharashtra Tamil Nadu and Chandigarh— have a higher prevalence of this disease than Bihar or Jharkhand. Delhi and Goa with high income levels are still awaiting sampling. Rural areas have lower diabetes rates than urban. But most worryingly the study finds that the poor in well-off urban states have higher incidence of diabetes than the rich in the same cities. In other words the rich in rich cities have started to learn good food habits. banking services chronicle reasoning book

banking services chronicle reasoning book  

competition success review magazine subscription address

 competition success review magazine subscription address

competition success review magazine subscription address published this article page no 99 goa has a vision to build a predictable and assured water utility so that consumers can have confidence in the availability and quality of their tap water. consumers would be informed in advance about any service outages in a targeted manner to minimise the impact and allow them to plan their lives better. if service quality and public trust are achieved then consumers can drink water directly from the tap with a high degree of confidence and peace of mind.competition success review magazine subscription address

arihant competition in focus monthly magazine

 arihant competition in focus monthly magazine

arihant competition in focus monthly magazine published this article page no 301

The agency has also classified the haircuts in four categories. These marginal or moderate haircuts while a third needs aggressive and nearly 40 per cent deep haircuts.In terms of sectors power sector would require moderate haircuts while those from the metals and construction sectors would need aggressive ones according to the rating agency. A majority of the debts requiring deep haircuts belong to companies with unsustainable businesses so asset sales are necessary to recover monies Crisil said. arihant competition in focus monthly magazine

competition wizard

 competition wizard

competition wizard Published this articles Page No 291 

Under court orders she oversaw the transition of public transport to CNG — Delhi would have been even more polluted otherwise Power privatisation happened under her regime and while this had its share of critics it did help the city overcome acute shortages She encouraged participatory governance through the flagship Bhagidaari  initiative But for her last-minute micromanagement Delhi would have struggled to host the 2010 Commonwealth Games (CWG) competition wizard