India- interesting timing

[Linda Minor]

While other motives may may be involved, it seems one of the main ones was to reverse the slight thaw in India-Pakistan relations and provoke a war there - perhaps even a nuclear one. Who benefits?

I suspect the move back to Afghanistan was part of the plan all along to ensure Rothschild control whether the U.S. elected a Democrat or a Republican:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/10/lad...hschi.html
10/5/07 at 5:58
You knew that Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild was a mega communications mogul. You knew she was married to British banking scion Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and buds with Henry Kissinger and Vernon Jordan. But did you know she was practically, like, a philosopher?
...On why she's investing in India: "You know, there are more billionaires in India than anyplace else. Let me put it this way: Every day in India, the entire nation of Great Britain is on the train, one way or another. So the numbers are pretty colossal. Seventy million people in India can afford anything they want. It's a small percent, but that's a reasonable number. Two hundred fifty million are middle-class, so you might not go for the Chanel glasses, but you sure could go for an Estée Lauder lipstick or a Starbucks coffee."

On why she's voting for Hillary: "I think if history is our guide, we've had stronger economies, more wealth creation, under Democratic presidents than we have under Republican presidents."

http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/t...Rothschild
Today the New Jersey-born Lady de Rothschild—the flashiest hostess in London—is mates with Tony and Cherie Blair, among other topflight Britons. She's also mistress of the former John Singer Sargent home in Chelsea and of Ascott House, the 3,200-acre Rothschild family estate in Buckinghamshire, and the chief executive of E.L. Rothschild, the holding company that she owns with her third husband to manage investments in the Economist and various enterprises in India. Those include FieldFresh, a startup that will grow and export Indian fruits and vegetables for markets in Europe and Asia, and a soon-to-be-announced retail venture aimed at the exploding Indian middle class.

In July, Sir Evelyn completed the sale of his stake in the centuries-old English branch of the Rothschild banking empire (for a reported $600 million)—which frees up a lot of capital for them to be major players in the Indian business world....
L.G.: You mentioned E.L. Rothschild, which is the company that you run, you're the C.E.O. of. What does it do? I know you have investments in India, which we'll talk about, but what is the idea for the company?

L.R.: The idea for the company is to essentially be a holding company for our global interests, but largely focused on India. So the company oversees our investment in the Economist, for instance, in the U.K. Our most active activity is in India. I sold my last business in June 2000; Evelyn retired as chairman at N.M. Rothschild in 2002. In 2003, we both decided that we wanted to do another major business, and we wanted to do it together, and so we stepped back and looked at where in the world and what industry would be a growth situation. And we decided that Asia was going to be the next spurt of real growth. We were agnostic between China and India, so we spent a year going to both countries, having meetings with whoever would meet with us. I had once read that Henry Kravis when he started K.K.R., went through his father's Rolodex and visited C.E.O.'s of Midwest companies and just said, "You know, how are things going? Would it be of any interest to you to have an outside investor, and you stay in and manage? What do you think the opportunities are?" And that was kind of what I was thinking about when we were making calls to businesspeople, bankers, journalists, think-tank people, politicians, to get a sense of what opportunities there might be.

L.G.: In both countries?

L.R.: In both countries. It started out with both countries, but within about four months, five months, we decided to limit ourselves to India. Part of that was that in 2003, $49 billion of foreign direct investment had gone into China, and $4.9 billion had gone into India. And on a macro level, if China is better, or was better, it wasn't 10 times better. So our opportunity seemed better just financially. Also, we were more comfortable with democracy. We were more comfortable with rule of law. There's the obvious British-Indian link culturally that was important for Evelyn and interesting for me, so we began focusing on India.

L.G.: If you're a business, is an unwieldy, sometimes insane-seeming democracy better than an authoritarian regime?

L.R.: Well, it's not better when you're in the middle of it and it's driving you crazy. It doesn't always feel better. But you do know in your heart of hearts that when you play by the rules and you get something in place in India, it is going to stay there. So I believe in the long term — and sometimes India can feel like it's exasperatingly long-term — it is a safer bet.

Once this was assured, the Saudis and China probably stopped buying up worthless American banking debt and started the economic collapse. They figured they aren't going to be getting their money's worth any more so will stir up terrorism in Pakistan.