Tuesday 6 December 2016

காமராஜர்,எம்.ஜி.ஆர்,ஜெயலலிதா மீண்டும் எழுதப்படும் வரலாறு!

எழுபது ஆண்டுகள் ஓயாத அழுகுரல்!
 
காமராஜர்


https://youtu.be/5SSFE0_N3XA

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5SSFE0_N3XA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

எம்.ஜிஆர்



https://youtu.be/6Urbf7LmEYI

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Urbf7LmEYI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ஜெயலலிதா



https://youtu.be/0owIFUGeu-c

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0owIFUGeu-c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



 
* அம்மு ஜெயலலிதா, அம்மாவாகினார்!
 
* ஜெயாவின் முதல் அரசியல் பணி எம்ஜி ஆர்  ஆட்சியின்  `சத்துணவுத் திட்டமாகும்`
 
* இந்த சத்துணவுத் திட்டம் காமாரஜரிடமிருந்து எம்.ஜி.ஆர்.கடன் வாங்கியது ஆகும்.
 
*  எம் .ஜி.ஆர் திட்டத்தின் தொடர்ச்சியும் அபிவிருத்தியுமே அம்மா திட்டமாகும்.

ஆக மொத்தம் இது 70 ஆண்டுகள்!

துண்டுப்பிரசுரத்தின் கேள்வி;

70 ஆண்டுகள் ஒரு பெரும் சமூகத்திரளை உற்பத்தி வாழ்வில் இணைய வல்லமையற்றவர்கள் ஆக்கி இலவசத்தில் வாழ வைத்த தமிழகத்தின் பொருளாதாரக் காரணிகள் என்ன?
 

Italian referendum defeat 'threatens survival of the euro,'


Matteo Renzi's Italian referendum defeat 'threatens survival of the euro,' warn German business leaders

By Barney Henderson  ;

The euro's survival is under increased threat following the political instability caused by the Italian referendum result, German business bosses warned yesterday, raising further questions about the long-term viability of Italy’s membership of the currency union.

Ulrich Grillo, the head of the Federation of German Industries, or BDI, said the crushing defeat handed to the Italy’s centrist prime minister, Matteo Renzi, had worsened the outlook for the survival of the single currency.

"The risks of a new political instability for economic development, the financial markets and the currency union are increasing further,” he said.

Stock and bond markets shrugged off the immediate risk from the Italian vote, but a leading independent analyst warned that Italy’s membership of the euro on “borrowed time” following Mr Renzi’s defeat at the hands of anti-establishment political forces.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), a leading economics consultancy, said that following the vote it now estimated the chances of Italy staying in the Euro for the next five years had fallen below 30 per cent.

The CEBR said that bitter three-month campaign had demonstrated that Italian voters would not tolerate indefinitely the chronic unemployment, stagnant wages and Brussels-imposed austerity that now came with euro membership.

“There is no doubt that Italy could stay in the euro if it were prepared to pay the price of virtually zero growth and depressed consumer spending for another 5 years or so,” the group said in a note.
“But that is asking a lot of an increasingly impatient electorate. We think the chances of their sustaining this policy are below 30 per cent.”

European leaders did their best to put a brave face on the loss of a prime minister who had embraced European economic reforms, but whose back-me-or-sack-me call over the referendum was rejected by an emphatic 59% to 41% margin.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said she was saddened by Mr Renzi’s defeat, having supported his reforms, but said that Europe would continue on its current course, regardless. "From my point of view, we will continue our work in Europe and we have set the right priorities,” she said.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, gave a franker assessment, conceding that the rejection of Mr Renzi was “not a positive development in the case of the general crisis in Europe”.

Manfred Weber, the leader of the main conservative group in the European Parliament, said that success of populist forces such as Italy’s Five Star Movement and anti-immigrant Northern League heralded a new phase of instability in Europe.

“It is also a setback for those who want readiness for reform, those who want European countries to change. That is the only way we can deal with globalization,” he said.

Stock and currency markets gave a muted response to Mr Renzi’s defeat which had been widely expected and priced into the market, with main losses confined to shares in Italy’s heavily indebted banking sector. The euro recovered early losses against the dollar.

Meanwhile, in Milan bankers held emergency meetings to discuss whether there was sufficient market confidence to proceed with plans to launch a €5bn recapitalization of Monte dei Paschi di Siena, the world’s oldest lender.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister and head of the 19-member Eurozone, moved to calm concerns, saying that political limbo left by Mr Renzi’s defeat did not require any immediate intervention from Brussels or Frankfurt.

"It doesn't really change the situation economically in Italy or in the Italian banks,” he said in Brussels ahead of a meeting to discuss the on-going Greek bailout programme, “It doesn't seem to require any emergency steps.”

Downing St has said Britain will "work closely" with the new administration in Italy which emerges after the resignation of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in the wake of his referendum defeat,  according to the Press Association.

The 41-year-old Italian PM threw the EU into fresh turmoil by announcing his departure following the decisive 59%-41% rejection of his plans for constitutional reform.

His resignation sparked a slump in the euro, which fell sharply against the US dollar and hit a four-and-a-half-month low against sterling, reaching a 1.20 exchange rate for the first time since July.

Number 10 stressed that the outcome of the referendum on proposed constitutional changes was "a decision for the Italian people".

Theresa May's official spokeswoman said that the Prime Minister would seek to speak with Mr Renzi - who remains in office until his successor is appointed - over the coming days.

Rome was one of the stops on Mrs May's whirlwind tour of EU capitals in the days after she took office in July, when she was given a red-carpet welcome by Mr Renzi for talks over lunch.

Italian President Sergio Mattarella issued a statement today lauding the referendum's high turnout as "testimony of a solid democracy and a passionate country capable of active participation."
"Before us there are commitments and deadlines which Italy's institutions will have to respect in order to provide an adequate response to the problems of the moment," he added.

Italian media outlets were reporting that outgoing prime minister Matteo Renzi will hold a cabinet meeting of his ministers this evening, possibly to be followed by a formal announcement.

"Renzi is strongly disliked," Antonio Noto, head of IPR Marketing polling institute, told AFP, adding that votes against the PM were "votes against the establishment, but also against his style".

Cecila Carrara, a lawyer in an international firm, said Renzi's "record is disastrous, he has mainly focused on getting good publicity".

The former mayor of Florence also came under fire for failing to get Europe to share the burden of the migrant crisis. Butcher Antonio Canestri told AFP that when it came down to it, "Europe wasn't listening to Renzi".

"Those who voted 'No' were impoverished middle-class families, hit by the economic crisis, without hope of prosperity or well-being for children or grandchildren... (and) the unemployed young," editorialist Maurizio Molinari wrote in La Stampa daily.

Fabrizio Sabelli, professor at the University of Geneva, said "the constitution is not the fundamental problem. It's the improvement of living conditions of so many people who suffer, and this jolt will undoubtedly do us good".

In the areas with the highest jobless rate the "No" camp won with 65.8 percent, while the impoverished south also largely voted "No".

Source Telegraph

Assad is on the verge of taking Aleppo


The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
How the War Ends in Syria


Syrian government soldiers in Aleppo on Saturday. Credit Hassan Ammar/Associated Press 
By PETER W. GALBRAITHDEC. 6, 2016

TOWNSHEND, Vt. — The civil war in Syria is over. Now it is time to stop the fighting.
Aided by Russia, Iran, Shiite militias and Hezbollah, the government of President Bashar al-Assad is on the verge of taking Aleppo, once Syria’s largest city. Supported by its powerful allies, the Syrian Army will then move to eliminate the remaining pockets of resistance, notably around the northern city of Idlib. While Iran has been Mr. Assad’s most important military ally, the Syrian regime would still want to have Russian airpower to finish its reconquest of the country’s populous west.
The Assad regime has prevailed through tactics of unspeakable brutality — barrel bombs, starvation, the targeting of hospitals and rescue workers and the suspected use of chemical weapons — but it has prevailed. Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has rightly focused attention on these war crimes, but these denunciations will make no difference to the situation on the ground.

There is an absolutely counterproductive idea favored by Washington’s foreign policy elites of both parties, recycled recently by President Bill Clinton’s secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and Stephen J. Hadley, national security adviser to President George W. Bush, for providing additional military support to the moderate Syrian opposition. Such aid cannot possibly now change the trajectory of the war, but will certainly get more people killed.

Though the outcome is clear, how the war ends matters greatly. The United States has an interest in a result that allows as many Syrians as possible to go home, that ensures the total defeat of the Islamic State and other extremist groups, and that safeguards the Syrian Kurds, who have been America’s principal ally against the Islamic State.

Achieving these goals will require close collaboration with Russia, whose intervention enabled Mr. Assad to turn the tide of the war. Fortunately, Russia shares many of America’s objectives, even if its Syrian ally does not.

The United States and Russia could start by negotiating terms that would end the fighting between the regime and the moderate opposition. The terms might include an amnesty for the rebels, the right of Syrian refugees to return and equal access to reconstruction assistance. It could even include some promises of basic political freedoms, international monitoring and the removal of Syrian officials (not including Mr. Assad) responsible for the worst crimes.
  
The Russians have considerable leverage with a Syrian government that wants Russian backing for mopping-up operations. The United States, with less leverage, will have to persuade the non-Islamist opposition that a negotiated surrender is better than total destruction.

European countries have a strong interest in creating conditions to encourage refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to return to Syria rather than heading west. America should work to ensure the diplomatic engagement of European allies to bring an end to hostilities, as well as their financial support for reconstruction in Syria.

In eastern Syria, Kurdish forces supported by the United States Air Force and special forces are battling the Islamic State in a largely separate conflict. On a recent trip to the Kurdish areas, I traveled to within 15 miles of Raqqa, the capital of the Islamic State. Kurdish fighters feel confident that they can take the city, but their leaders understand that they’re not in a position to govern a large Arab city. Since there is no viable Arab alternative to the Syrian government, this will mean transferring control of Raqqa to the regime in Damascus.

Finally, the United States must provide long-term guarantees to the Syrian Kurds, who now control a large territory, not all of which is Kurdish. For now, the Syrian Army is in no position to take on the Kurdish forces, but eventually, Mr. Assad will surely try to recreate the centralized Arab state he inherited from his father. He will also want to use Syria’s oil resources — much of which are now under Kurdish control — to finance reconstruction.

One option is to establish an American-protected Kurdish safe area in northeastern Syria similar to the one created in northern Iraq after the first gulf war. That expensive option is complicated by the inability of the United States to use Turkish air bases to enforce it. (Turkey regards the Kurds as its leading enemy in Syria.) The less costly alternative is to co-sponsor a Russian plan for an autonomous Kurdish area within a federal Syria.

However, Russia’s leverage with Mr. Assad will diminish as the opposition crumbles in Syria’s west and Russian airpower becomes less important. At that point, the opportunity to extract concessions will disappear, and the field will belong to Mr. Assad and Iran.

President-elect Donald J. Trump has stated his intention to work with Russia and Mr. Assad to defeat the Islamic State. The sooner America reaches out to Russia, ideally before January’s handover of administration, the better.

Peter W. Galbraith is a former United States ambassador to Croatia.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

NYT TELLS JOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS “GENOCIDE,” “ETHNIC CLEANSING,” AND “OCCUPIED TERRITORY''

LEAKED NYT GAZA MEMO TELLS JOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS “GENOCIDE,” “ETHNIC CLEANSING,” AND “OCCUPIED TERRITORY” Amid the internal battle over...