Springfield, IL - August 23, 2008 - In front of a cheering crowd as well as in a text message to over three million anxious supporters, U.S. Senator and prospective Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama declared to the world that he had selected 1980's pop musician Rick Astley to be his vice-presidential running mate.
"And now, America, what you've all been waiting to hear!" shouted the Junior Senator from the state of Illinois, as an American-flag-decorated curtain dropped behind Mr. Obama, immediately followed by the familiar opening drum beats and funk synthesizer chords of Astley's 1987 hit single, "Never Gonna Give You Up."
Pumping his fists downward in a striking motion as he spoke, Mr. Obama continued, "you just got Rickrolled, America!"
While the title of "greatest prank ever" remains speculative, experts from the Guinness Book of World Records verified shortly before press time that Obama's announcement likely set the world record for the longest sustained silence from a crowd of over 10,000 people, at roughly over seven minutes.
Markos Moulstas, founder of the liberal weblog DailyKos.com, has not been seen since Obama's announcement. San Francisco police have begun an extensive search of local bars for bodies. . . .
Senator Hillary Clinton could not be reached for comment.
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, acknowledged the cleverness of the Obama campaign's prank, calling it "an act of surprising vision and initiative." However he did express regret that Mr. Astley, being a British citizen not born in the United States, was Constitutionally ineligible to be elected to the office of vice-president, as well as expressed "disappointment" that the revelation of the entire Obama campaign being an elusive scam inarguably guaranteed victory in the November election, and the likely power to nominate up to three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, to Republican Senator John McCain.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/22/2008 14:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Oh, well. Maybe someday they'll make "Blowing shit up" an Olympic event... Can't do that for the same reason softball is being dropped as an Olympic sport -- the winner is always the same ...
In the Jordanian comic series "Collag," a guard stands at the gate of the 21st century and searches the identity cards of those who wish to access the modern age. The guard with a sense of humor asks a Japanese man "what did you do to deserve entering the 21st century?" The man answers that he invented many technological equipments and went to many wars and won some and lost some others, but recovered and offered many important contributions to human history. The scenario repeats with individuals from China, America, Canada, Europe, Australia and Africa; all reported what they accomplished in the twentieth century and their attributions to human history to deserve entering the new century an so on and so forth.
Then came the turn of the Arab who walks up to the gate full with self confidence and the guard asks him the same question "what are the Arab contributions to human history over the past one hundred years? What did they invent? What did they create in the fields of Natural and Social Sciences?" After pausing, in deep thought, the Arab answers "nothing."
The guard refuses to let him into the 21st century and kicks him from the gate and informs him that there is no place for him in the new age. The guard continues, saying that he is just a consuming being who cries and complains a lot and is useless for humanity. This guy writes for Ma'an?
A similar answer would have to be given if the guard in the TV series asked what Arabs had contributed to the Olympics this year.
We feel ashamed and disgraced that the Arabs did not get any gold medals except for two bronze for North Africa.
The Olympics is a chance for world TV stations to film Arabs doing something other than carrying guns.
Given how much time we spend worrying about guns, it is a shame that we could not even win the Olympic shooting event, which was taken by a young woman from Bulgaria.
Given how much time we spend worrying about guns, it is a shame that we could not even win the Olympic shooting event, which was taken by a young woman from Bulgaria.
Neither did we win a medal for sword fighting, or horse riding or even any gymnastic event. The only Olympic quality gymnastics Arabs are performing these days are within various intelligence departments around the globe; doing the splits with one leg in the Jordanian service and the other in offices in Cairo.
So, congratulations for the Arab leaders on their failure, congratulations to the Arabs on their weakness. We will always be stretching our necks hoping to win a golden medal while the Arab radio stations and their satellite channels are hailing ancient days of horse riding and sword fighting and claiming that they can still defeat the enemy.
And we say to them, who live half in a rosy past: "shame on you... shame on you... enough with your hypocrisy and meaningless paranoia."
Nasser Lahham is the Chief Editor of Ma'an News Agency in Bethlehem
#1
Given how much time we spend worrying about guns, it is a shame that we could not even win the Olympic shooting event...
Ouch! This guy hit it right on the head and with many bitch-slaps thrown in for good measure. Maybe someone will actually read it and take it to heart in the Arab world.
And maybe monkeys holding $100 bills will start flying out of my ass.
#3
They have no excuse. There were Olympics before Mo-Ham-Head's time, Gold, Silver, Bronze were all around then. Competition, victory, defeat, discipline, sacrafice, all of that was there in Mo's time. They're all about recognition, but not fair competition. This is an interesting question about the modern Arab psyche.
#6
They are obviously discrimanating against Muslims. We need more events out which they can show off their stuff - like head loping and reaching for the most ourageous examples to take offence at.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/22/2008 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
Is nature determined to make men extinct? Senior scientists believe that women may evolve as humanity's sole representatives -- and social and political trends are lending weight to their theories.
#6
"I donÂ’t really want his father to try to have any input into how he grows up. I want all the parenting to come from me"
How is this any different from the way most women think now in the U.S., enabled by divorce law?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/22/2008 6:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I donÂ’t really want his father to try to have any input into how he grows up. I want all the parenting to come from me.
Which explains the complete pussification of the modern male and will allow cultures with aggressive males to dominate, conquer and extinguish ours.
Funny how "studies" like this never take into account nature and its true role in evolution. The weaker species is always pushed out by more aggressive/adaptive ones.
#11
It'll last just as long till the barbarian shows up and there are no more protectors around to 'man' the walls. That's when their evolutionary experiment will end, along with their genetic line.
#16
We ARE the barbarians Procopius!
We are the last defenders of manliness.
We WILL drink the sacramental beer and weild our unregistered assault weapons (semi-auto of course). Those that stand in our way will be brought low, and they shall know the wrath of our might. And we shall see them driven before us, and hear the lamentation of their women. Which will be indistinguishable from their lamentation, cause they're all just a bunch of crying pussweeds.
August 22, 2008: The Taliban are taking advantage of the unwillingness of many NATO contingents to fight. Groups of Taliban gunmen are being sent to the vicinity of Kabul, where many of these less warlike NATO operate, and have launched attacks. They got lucky and killed ten French troops in one of these operations, in an action that highlighted the degree to which these troops, and their leaders, were unprepared for combat. By attacking, and inflicting losses, on these troops, the Taliban stir up political controversy back in Europe, leading, the Taliban hope, to withdrawal of the NATO troops from Afghanistan.
A major problem with this strategy is that the Taliban have the support of less than a quarter of the Afghan population. Most of Afghanistan is at peace, but that is not considered news and is rarely reported on. Most of Afghanistan has always hated the Taliban, and resisted them violently. Again, this is not news and rarely reported. But the Taliban know that every suicide bomber attack is considered news, and will be reported. This gives the Taliban power, because they know that if you feed the press corps the right kinds of press releases, the foreign media will publish what amounts to a pro-Taliban view of the situation.
While most Afghans view the Taliban and al Qaeda as a foreign backed, and heroin funded, rebellion by a few Pushtun tribes in the south, the world sees the situation as the Taliban on the verge of retaking control of the country.
So while most Afghans view the Taliban and al Qaeda as a foreign backed, and heroin funded, rebellion by a few Pushtun tribes in the south, the world sees the situation as the Taliban on the verge of retaking control of the country. This, of course, ignores the fact that the Taliban never controlled the entire country. When the U.S. intervened after September 11, 2001, the Taliban were still fighting non-Pushtun tribes in the north, who had no intention of submitting to Taliban control.
Another much ignored story is the role drug money plays in the persistence of Taliban violence. The heroin trade is a major part of the Afghan economy. Entire tribes, especially in the south, and particularly in Kandahar province, are involved in growing poppies, refining it into heroin and smuggling the drugs out of the country. This is bringing unprecedented wealth into the region, and you can see it in the numerous new vehicles and fortified compounds. The money also buys muscle, and the drug gangs back the Taliban, who have, in the past, tolerated and simply taxed the heroin trade. The Taliban officially deny this, and point to how they had banned the heroin trade just before September 11, 2001. But even back then, that was seen as a scam, an attempt to get foreign aid by going through the motions of banning the heroin production. The reality was that the drug gangs had produced so much heroin in the late 1990s that the price they were getting was falling. So the Taliban, acting as something of a heroin OPEC, sought to control the supply, and the price, while also scamming the West out of free food and other goodies.
Many Afghans have noted that, while the Westerners can be deadly fighters, they do have their vulnerabilities. It's something of a competition among the tribes, to outdo each other in hustling the Westerners. The biggest hustle is obtaining foreign aid, while resisting anti-corruption efforts that seek to prevent crooked officials from stealing much of that aid. This is the real war in Afghanistan, for it takes place throughout the country.
The Taliban are relying more on suicidal attacks. The suicide bombers are obvious, but sending groups of gunmen away from Kandahar or the Pakistani border is also suicidal. The group that ambushed the French patrol outside Kabul two days ago, were soon found and attacked as they headed back to the border. About half of them were killed, wounded or captured. The Afghan "way of the warrior" does not endorse suicide attacks, so al Qaeda and their local allies have a hard time recruiting suicide bombers. Roadside bombs, and the prospect of loot from the victims of ambushes, is seen as respectable. There are more Afghan police and soldiers out there, and these are easier to kill and loot than the foreign troops. But, basically, if you have enough cash available, you can entice experienced fighters to accompany the ill-prepared religious school students recruited in Pakistan. The Taliban effort is more about religious faith and media manipulation, than it is a conventional military campaign. This is all a baffling mystery to most Westerners, because the mindset is so different. Afghanistan is a gun culture with a warrior mentality and a tribal society influenced by extreme religious ideas, greed and opportunism. Try and make a snappy headline out of all that.
Africa should stop blaming the West for her woes and implement means of delivering good governance to the citizen of the continent.
This is according to Kenyan High Commissioner Tom Amolo who on Tuesday addressed delegates at the Africa Institute of South Africa (AISA) Ambassadorial Forum.
The forum looked at the challenge of good governance in Africa and meeting African Union (AU) and New Partnership for Africa's Development's (Nepad) goals.
Amolo lauded Tshwane Metro council for trying to bring the "African street closer to African practitioners".
"The combined positive benefits of an interaction may not be felt immediately but will linger, take seed and flourish in the hearts and minds, not only of our grassroots, but also the political elite and economic elites that run the country," he said.
#1
Since the leaders of Africa are at fault does anyone really expect them to take blame? What Africa needs is leaders that care more about their nation than they do about their tribe, or themselves. For some reason the third world produces far less individuals in that mold. Perhaps that is why they are the third world.
#2
What Africa needs is leaders that care more about their nation than they do about their tribe, or themselves.
I'd say the same here -
"What America needs is leaders that care more about their nation than they do about their party, donors, special interest groups, NIMBYites, Luddites, pork, color, race, creed, or their own power or egos."
Fortunately, America apparently has had just enough to squeak by than most other nations in the world. You don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than someone else in the group.
#3
You're right but luckily America did have people that cared and they set up a system that kept those types balanced against each other, mostly. So far.
Russia's invasion to crush the Prague Spring began the slow death of Labour as a party. A new political map needs to be drawn
by Martin Kettle
Looking back through August 2008 eyes, many commentators now seem to treat the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia 40 years ago this week as a primarily geopolitical event. The coincidence of Russia's invasion of Georgia and the anniversary of the Czech invasion of 1968 perhaps makes it understandable that some should colour their thinking about the crushing of the Prague Spring this way. In this elision, securing their near-abroad against their empire's enemies is what tsars in Moscow always do, whether the threat du jour is from American capitalists or Georgian nationalists. The common theme, in other words, is always Russian power politics.
Undeniably there are important and ominous connections here - and they are ominous not only to those who live in any country in that vast geographic Russian border arc that stretches south from Finland to the Black Sea and then east from the Caucasus towards Mongolia. No other state in the contemporary world treats its neighbours' sovereignty with as much cynicism as Russia - and those who are rightly outraged by illegal invasions ought of course to say so. Or have I somehow been watching the Olympics so much that I missed the million-strong anti-war demonstration?
Spengler's top snark (IMHO) for this one
"The fact is that all Russian politicians are clever. The stupid ones are all dead. By contrast, America in its complacency promotes dullards. A deadly miscommunication arises from this asymmetry. The Russians cannot believe that the Americans are as stupid as they look.
#1
G(r)om, I usually like your non-sequitur, but here I am perplexed : if I understand you correctly, you basically think all gentils are hostile one way or an another to jews, and you think the USA bully Israel into self-destructive behavior... do you think that russians are less antisemitic than say western europeans, and that russia is less harmful to Israel than America, too? I find your russia-rooting confusing, and even a bit amusing as seeing with whom in the french blogosphere this puts you with (hint : they don't like "zionists", and they too are derisive of western democracies and the "West").
#2
The Russian Federation's scarcest resource is people. It cannot ignore the 22 million Russians stranded outside its borders after the 1991 collapse
Well, RusFed shoud drag them back into Russia proper. It is a no brainer. Instead they are scheming about territory, which would likely create a conflict at some point in which a lot of people would die, Russians inclusive.
#3
The Russian end game. What scares the Russkies is that soon, sooner than they like, the Americans are going to have a real first strike capability. Instead of adjusting behaviors to match that environment they're doing stupid authoritarian tricks to speed it up. A lot of people are going to pay the price for letting the bear play this game.
#4
Americans are playing Go. We flip Russia's pawns to become our allies.
Posted by: ed ||
08/22/2008 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If all Russian politicians were wise, why did they lose the Cold War? How is it that they managed to lose the greatest number of people during WWII, by allying with Hitler to enable the invasion of Western Europe, which then led to the invasion of Russia? It seems to me that Russian politicians are only clever, and many cases, too clever by half. In other words, a lot like gromguru, who is obviously a Russian first and an Israeli second.
#6
The other key point is that Spengler has this really weird fixation on Islam as the biggest threat to the West. It is not. There are two countries that can, on command, kill tens or hundreds of millions of Westerners - Russia and China. Islam is a nit, as it has been since the Ottoman empire lapsed into decrepitude three centuries ago.
#9
Zhang, you have a point. However, Islam is a tick, not a nit. It can grow feeding on your lifeblood, and may give you encephalitis. I wouldn't underestimate its virulence, even if it seems to be somewhat contained at the moment.
#11
g: His talking about now ZF. (Clinton, Bush II, Obambi)
Please. Bush 2 peeled off Georgia and Ukraine from the Russian orbit. Russia is now merely getting back part of of Georgia, at the cost of Georgians now thinking of themselves as completely separate from Russia. What's worse - Russia has now pushed most of non-Russian Europe squarely back into America's arms. The beauty of American under-reaction is that it makes clear to countries in the region that the real dispute isn't between Russia and Uncle Sam - as many of them want it to be. It's between Imperial Russia and their continued independence. And EUnik's are getting the message - that Germany and France will hand them over - gift-wrapped - to the Russians with a smile. Putin is clever as Russian leaders always are - and Saddam Hussein was - in a way that mainly works with internal rivals.
#13
The Russians have never been clever in diplomatic nuances. A quick back stab, not-so-subtle threats, making strange alliance choices that work for that war but bite their ass in the next, they have been very clever. Seeing 30 years down the road... not so much. Not that the West has been better since our leadership and governance change every 8-12 years.
#15
The Americans I know play chess, Monopoly... and p0ker. But Spengler does insist on his imaginary, stereotyped Americans. That's what his readers expect. As for the stupid Russians being all dead, it is a clear attribute of Homo sapians that new stupid people are born all the time.
#17
Yep! We get possesion of all the real estate in our battles. They just get rooked when they play against us head on. They play a right clever game in their heads and a clumsy one on the ground. I think that will show up clearer when we look back at the Georgia move five years from now. Most of the near abroad countries will have sought cover from the west and Russia wont be able to stop it with more heavy-handed maneuvers.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/22/2008 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Meh. This guy never played Monopoly with some of the people I've played Monopoly with. It can be a strategic game if you are a devious type.
(Of course, the kiddies in my neighborhood preferred Risk, even though it tended to flare up into fights requiring the parental units to confiscate the game.....ahhh, good times, good times.....or even Mastermind and Othello.....)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
08/22/2008 19:23 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Chess, the rules are fixed, the playing peices are set in stone, the playing field uniform and unvarying.
Compare to real life, where the playing field changes while you are on it, the playing pieces come and go and never seem to be the same in function twice, and the rules are fluid.
Monopoly is a far better game because it makes you deal with randomness. Chess does not. Which is why most chess grand masters are usless at anything that requires dealing with the messiness of reality.
So grom, that leaves you being the rigid stupid one.
Kiev - Ukraine fears it could be the next target of Russia's campaign to reassert influence over countries it long dominated in the Soviet Union, with Moscow well placed to foment separatist feelings in its Russian-speaking regions.
Ukraine stood by Georgia in its war with Russia over the region of South Ossetia. President Viktor Yushchenko travelled to Georgia to show his support and announced tougher rules on Russian naval movements from a base in Ukraine.
And in a departure from his usual careful balancing act between Russian and Western interests, Yushchenko attacked Russia over South Ossetia in a way more akin to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.
Some political analysts say that could heighten the risk. "When Ukraine prioritises its national interests, it goes against Russia's interests and, of course, there will be conflict," said Viktor Chumak, an analyst for Ukraine's International Centre for Policy Studies. "And Russia has broken through a psychological barrier to start this kind of war on former Soviet territory... Georgia had created itself in the shape of an enemy of Russia, and many in Russia already see us in the same way... We probably rank third in the list of Russia's leading enemies."
Both born out of bloodless revolutions, one orange and one rose, Yushchenko and Saakashvili's administrations want to join NATO, the European Union and secure close ties with the United States. Like Georgia, Ukraine was not put on the fast-track to NATO membership at the alliance's summit last April, but was promised it would be allowed in one day.
All of this has angered Russia which is fearful of having the Western military alliance on its doorstep.
Other former Soviet republics have also been considering their rankings.
Moldova, whose Communist government has courted the West rather than traditional ally Russia, fears it has taken the same path as Georgia and has Russian peacekeepers patrolling in its separatist Transdniestria region.
Even Belarus's leader, Alexander Lukashenko, initially distanced himself from the war, which was criticised in the West. But subsequently, at Moscow's prompting, he praised Russia's "wisdom" in the way it handled the crisis.
Analysts say the Crimea region in southern Ukraine could be used by Russia to destabilise Ukraine. It hosts Russia's Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol and the majority of people living there are ethnic Russians. Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine could also provide fertile ground, the analysts say.
The Crimea was detached from Russia and given to the Ukraine by Stalin right after World War II. If Yushchenko is as smart as he thinks, give it back. That would rob Russia of the issue and remove a lot of unhappy citizens.
Chumak said Russia could take advantage if Ukrainian politicians failed to resolve their differences and continued to let legislation slide. Yushchenko and his prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, have sparred over almost all policy decisions since she came to power in December. In that situation then Russia will start playing games, start provoking Ukraine, especially with Crimea," he said.
Yushchenko was quick to call on the West to protect Georgia's territorial integrity. "When we think about our position on Georgia, I have no doubts... The loss of sovereignty, putting into doubt the territorial integrity of Georgia - this means revising the sovereignty of all," Yushchenko, swept to power by the 2004 "Orange revolution", said in a statement.
Russia could also hold Ukraine ransom over its gas supplies. Moscow controls about 80 percent of Ukraine's supplies and in 2006 Russia cut supplies to Ukraine over a pricing dispute.
"There is a reason to be wary in the short-term future, there is a threat in that Ukraine is similar to Georgia in terms of what has happened in recent years," said political analyst Oleksander Dergachev. "But I find it difficult to think that the threat posed is a military one. Russia relies on the fact that it has more of an influence over Ukraine economically."
Most analysts cautioned against scare-mongering and said Ukraine could avoid confrontation by taking a pragmatic stance first and then reforming its economy in the long-term. "If Ukraine sorts out its domestic situation and consolidates its foreign policy in terms of European and Atlantic integration and this goes at a good pace then we can avoid the South Ossetian scenario," Chumak said.
"I mean there is no stronger enemy to Ukraine than Ukraine itself, especially its politicians."
#1
BOTH RUSSIA + CHINA, etc. fear the RISE AND POTENCY OF NUCLEAR ISLAMISM in CENTRAL ASIA, plus themselves and all other ASIAN POWERS becom Islamist in their turn.
Lest we fergit, 21ST CENTURY [old] > so-called ASIA = PACIFIC = ASIA-PACIFIC CENTURY >= may just start out wid a de facto PAN-ASIAN/EURASIAN-WIDE WAR FOR CONTROL OF SAME, TO DECIDE SAME???
#2
The Russians already handed over about 400,000 passports to residents of Crimea (90% of its residents is Russian speaking).
The next will be the south (with Odessa and the rest of Black Sea coast) and the richest, industrialized east of today's Ukraine - so-called "Novorossiya" (historical New Russia), mostly Russian speaking and staunch supporters of Viktor Yanukovych and his russofile Party of Regions.
Well - what was good for a Yugoslav goose in the nineties, will be good for Ukrainian gander, eh?
Posted by: Matt K. ||
08/22/2008 2:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well - what was good for a Yugoslav goose in the nineties, will be good for Ukrainian gander, eh?
Except the Russian lust extends to the Baltic States as well just as Greater Serbia lusted for power and territory. It's pure Pan-Slavism whether its the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 'If we touch it, it's ours' philosophy. So since in their view, Might Makes Right, what does that allow US.
#4
"The Crimea was detached from Russia and given to the Ukraine by Stalin right after World War II. If Yushchenko is as smart as he thinks, give it back."
And Alaska was detached from Russia and sold to the USA by some Czar. Will you suggest the same thing if Putin starts asking for Alaska back instead?
It's time to stop appeasing the enemy. It's time to admit Ukraine into NATO and tell the world that we'll defend its territorial integrity, instead of asking it to hand off pieces of territory in further futile Munichs.
#6
Well - what was good for a Yugoslav goose in the nineties, will be good for Ukrainian gander, eh?
I opposed Clinton's intervention in Kosovo, exactly because I felt that supporting separatisms that are merely a disguise for neighbouring imperialisms is a very bad idea.
But in the case of Kosovo Clinton could atleast claim that the Serbs had started the whole circle of separatism with their support of Serb separatism in Bosnia, in Croatia, etc... Serbia back then suffered nothing more than what it attempted is several other nations: if anything it was karmic justice.
Ukraine is different -- Ukraine isn't an imperialist nation. Unlike Milosevich's Yugoslavia, Ukraine hasn't been supporting separatism in neighbouring regions of other countries. Unlike Milosevich's Yugoslavia, Ukraine hasn't armed minorities in neighbouring countries.
Ukraine is peaceful and is merely seeking its own independence.
That's the difference between Ukraine and Milosevich's Yugoslavia. And the difference between Ukraine and Putin's Russia for that part.
#8
The argument should be framed in terms of "democracy" and the rights of citizens to determine their government. While this can result in civil wars (as in our own country) the idea that another country can just come in and invade should not be acceptable to anyone in this century.
#9
and before some idiot comes back and points at the US intervention in Iraq - please - try to remember that Sadaam was a tyrant who invaded another country, subjected and murdered his people, threatened the west through his funding and support of terrorists and was given ample opportunity, through the UN and world collective, to modify his behavior before we went in and helped the Iraqi people form what will hopefully be a democracy.
The ethnic Russians in Ukraine are well represented democratically by the "Party of the Regions", and Ukraine is a functioning democracy.
The Kosovar Albanians, were a much smaller and permanent minority within the Republic of Serbia (that they situation was more complex in the Fed Rep of Yugoslavia overall, was of much less use to the Kos Albs, as FRY dissolved into its components, in part in response to Slobos aggressive Serb nationalism) Kosovos autonomous status was ended, leading to violent resistance in Kosovo.
Still no sause for that gander from the West.
Not even AFTER the Serb actions in Croatia and Bosnia. NATO was softer on Serbia and its presence in Kosovo that Ari was, apparently.
Slobo then attempted to weaken Kos Alb resistance by cracking down on Kosovo MODERATES. Leaving the radical Kosovo Liberation Army as the only viable opponent of the Serbs. When he failed to defeat the KLA with ordinary military or counterinsurgency means (hard to clear hold build when the local population sees you as oppressors) he began to put Kosovar Albs on trains to Albania. Using massacres of adult male Kos Albs as a good incentive to get them to move. And by massacre we are not talking about them dying cause shells fell on a city where there were soldiers, or tripping over a cluster bomb. We're talking about unarmed civilians being lined up and shot, and their bodies carted to Belgrade to keep it a secret.
Even so, NATO negotiated with Serbia to withdraw. When they did not, NATO intervened to end the ethnic cleansing.
In S Ossetia, after GENEROUS offers of autonomy by Georgia, S Ossetians continued to engage in violence against Georgia. Georgia invaded using conventional military means, bombarded a city, and about a hundred or so S Ossetians died in the bombardment. Moscow claimed it was 2000 civvie deaths, called it genocide, and invaded within hours, no negotiations, no warning, no nothing.
They managed through the most biased news reports (look at the Russia Today clips on Youtube) to convince their own people of the truth. And a few foreigners, mainly those who are less interested in the people of the Caucasus than they are in anti-US schadenfreude.
#13
While the Russians did take a beating in WWII, Russia and UK are the only two European empires not to have been defeated in war and dismembered as a result.
The UK decided to, effectively, hand over its imperial responsibilities to the US which has, effectively, picked up the ball in its own unique way.
I doubt the Russian will relinquish their imperial ambitions until they have lost a war. I would prefer that the Chinese wage it.
#14
Following Russian precedent in Georgia, the Chinese shoudl start handing ouyt passports to the millions of ethnic chinese in Russian terriroty to the east. Hand them an AK as well.
They outnumber ethnic Russians in a large number of areas in the east.
#16
I've wondered whether the Ukrainians returned ALL the weapons they said they had. Guess we'll find out soon enough.
Posted by: ed ||
08/22/2008 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Betty Graning - pardon me, Saddam Hussein a tyrant? How come, since when?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDABe8AOuCQ
Posted by: Matt K. ||
08/22/2008 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Liberal Hawk - you can stuff your hydrocephalic marines with your cheap lies.
No state sponsored violence in Ukraine against minorities? Have you ever been there? If not, I highly recommend you to visit ... Uzhgorod, where oppressed Ruthenians started to issue their own passports.
Do not ask Russians about forced ukrainization - ask a Hungarian in Karpatalja, a Pole in Tarnopol
or a Gagauz in Budzhak, west of Odessa(they talk about an independent republic there, too).
Guess what? None of them doesn't border Russia.
Posted by: Matt K. ||
08/22/2008 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Re Ruthenians:
According to a recent Ukrainian census, an overwhelming majority of Boykos, Lemkos, Hutsuls, Verkhovyntsi and Dolynians in Ukraine stated their nationality as being Ukrainian. About 10,100 people, or 0.8%, of Ukraine's Zakarpattia Oblast (province) identified themselves as Rusyns (Русини); by contrast, 1,010,000 considered themselves Ukrainians.
Yea, opressed Ruthenians... It would be like saying that Moravian Valachs (Moravštà Valaši) are opressed by Czechs. They are Czechs, even though they were originally migrants from Wallachia, more than 3 centuries ago.
#20
BTW, I could say that I am a Moravian, but that designation has only a regional meaning. It is not a nationality, nor an ethnicity, and despite that there are several Moravian dialects, they are variants of Czech language, mutually highly intelligible. My birth certificate states Nationality: Czech (Národnost: česká). Not moravská.
Deacon Blues, I believe that, ultimately, we all are. Take the area of Central Europe and count all the tribes and nations, armies that passed through and back and forth, in just the past 1500 years.
#4 Russia has been dispatching human spambots all over the web to post badly written pro-Russia apologias in every comments section on every blog. I'm s'prised we haven't had more here.
You can safely ignore, I don't think it's supposed to wait around for debate.
Posted by Seafarious 2008-08-21 11:44
***********************************************************
#5 And I suspect that by now, some few of the useful-idiot anti-America progressive crowd have decided to side with Vlad and will continue to leave similar droppings as well. Possibly with more plausible English.
Possibly.
Posted by Seafarious 2008-08-21 11:48
Editor,The South Ossetians were attacked by the pro-NATO Georgian government.
Kevin ScottBoston
This is the latest struggle in an ever-escalating series of Russian responses to the unbridled expansion of NATO. Once again, Russia sees the real threat that yet another state bordering sovereign Russian territory will become a NATO state. This time Russia is willing to "up its ante" and engage its military aggressively in order to stop the United States and NATO in its latest attempt to encircle Russia with NATO member states.
The United States should realize that the mindless over-expansion of NATO is the primary cause for the crisis in Georgia. The acronym NATO currently stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Just where on the map does Georgia and Ukraine come anywhere close to touching the North Atlantic? The truth is that they come nowhere close to the North Atlantic, thus the acronym NATO is very much out-dated. I propose that NATO should be renamed ERO. This would reflect the true nature of what modern NATO has become. ERO would stand for: The Encapsulate Russia Organization. Kevin ScottBoston
Editor, Americans want to believe what we are hearing from Russian news sources because we want world peace and prosperity for everyone, yet photographs and personal stories that we hear from independent reporters on location differ significantly from Russia's version of the facts. This is a real problem for everyone. Gery AllenOklahoma City, Oklahoma
Like it or not - Georgia is a cluster of nationalities and tribes. Dzhavaketia (have you ever heard about it, Frankie?) will follow suit soon...
Posted by: Matt K. ||
08/22/2008 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Matt K --- The USA is also a cluster of nationalities and tribes -- thus, should Russia invade us? Look at our largest cities -- they definitely have clusters of nationalities and tribes. Which do you prefer Russia to claim first?
I don't know if the allegations found in Philip Berg's civil action are true. I did not sever Barack Obama's umbilical cord, I do not know anyone who did, and therefore I cannot know for sure absent more than circumstantial evidence whether or not Stanley Ann Dunham opened wide and gave birth to the Illinois liberal in Kenya, in Hawaii, or elsewhere.
Perhaps we can look into the destination for mass shipments of gold, frankincense and myrrh in early August of 1961. Or perhaps we could just ask Keith Olbermann -- I'm sure he has a framed photograph of the blessed event.
What I do know is that, when the United States Constitution was penned mere steps from where Berg's lawsuit was filed yesterday afternoon, those imperfect but brilliant gentlemen who wrote the fifth clause of Article II, Section 1 established the trio of specific eligibility requirements--citizenship, age and residency--in hopes of increasing the probability that the elected officials who were to assume the presidency in years to come would be of sound mind, of good judgment, and in possession of a soul rooted in an undying love for America.
It was important to those courageous men that the future leaders of their fledgling nation understand what it means to be an American. Every clause in that document is there for a reason, each a lesson learned from fresh wounds of tyranny gone but not forgotten, and the framers made a point to require that, at the very least, a potential president must have been a citizen of the United States "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Unfettered, undivided devotion and loyalty to America was of the utmost concern; simply put, only those who fought and bled for Her independence, or at the very least understood the meaning behind, need for and potential of this great experiment could be trusted with its charge.
Regardless of whether Barack Obama was born in a hospital in Honolulu or a hut in Kenya, the real question brought forth by Philip Berg's civil action, to me, is not one of constitutional eligibility but rather of moral and intellectual and even ideological qualification.
Barack Obama's actions show a penchant for blaming America first and placing Her needs second. His associations show that no unimaginably awful deed goes unrewarded, that the want for friendship, appeasement and superficial detente overshadows the need for a firm grasp on reality and unapologetic employment of common sense. His aspirations make us believe that we can live our lives blameless for societal and economic ills, and that centuries-old blood feuds can be solved with a handshake and conversation over coffee and a chilled plate of arugula.
John McCain, wrong on so many issues, was 100 percent right on Wednesday when he stated that he never questioned Obama's patriotism, only his judgment. At a time when the United States faces unprecedented threats from every angle, within and without, at a time when Congressional malfeasance--or, in the case of Pelosi's House and the energy crisis, nonfeasance--could have disastrous effects for decades to come, sound judgment is of the utmost importance.
For our founding fathers, unflinching patriotism, unassailable public virtue and unflappable judgment were inherent among those who helped to establish the United States of America, whether on the battlefield in Trenton or in Congress in Philadelphia, as those who were citizens "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" knew why they were there, what America was about, and why She was so desperately needed.
Regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or in Hawaii, regardless of whether his birth certificate is his half-sister's or his own, or whether he went by the name of Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro, this self-proclaimed "Citizen of the World" has much to learn about what it truly means to be an American.
#1
Holy f'n sh*t...that was hilarious...what a bunch of pretentious retards. Joss Stone? Isn't she a British citizen that can't even vote in the U.S. election?
One major Faux Pas - whoever the guy was wearing our Dress Blue uniform w/the jump wings is pretty f*cked up - U.S. mil cannot lend themselves in uniform for a political ad - even if that guy is retired it is still a messed up message that will get this ad into trouble. Of course, the whoopi goldberg crowd is so stupid it doesn't surprise me that they missed that bit of fact.
#4
Troubling, very troubling. I see absolutely no humour, only a painful throwback to the 1960's. My "prayer" is that America will reject this kak in November.
#5
The guy wearing the uniform about the middle of that was a US Marine in full dress.
That is illegal.
The reason for this is that the uniform is an official representation of the military and of the person wearing it, their accomplishments, and their unit. Just by itself--that is, the boots, pants, belt, shirt, blouse, and cap--are okay.
Wearing a full and proper uniform for anything other than official business would suggest official endorsement of that event which is why it's illegal for service memebers to attend political rallies in uniform unless officially on duty there, for example, as part of the color guard.
More tone-deafness from 0bamessiah, and gross ignorance of military law customs courtesy and culture by Zero-bama and his acolytes.
San Ysidro - Looking south out of a window at the busiest border crossing in the world, the phrase looking for needles in a haystack comes to mind, along with the realisation that America's war on drugs cannot be won. Unless the laws of supply and demand are miraculously suspended.
What you see from the window looks like a gigantic traffic jam slowly moving along 24 lanes stretching from Tijuana, on the Mexican side of the border, towards inspection booths where agents of the US Customs and Border Protection check identity papers and decide whether to wave a vehicle through or order it into "secondary inspection" for hidden drugs or people.
There is no day without drug busts and arrests. There is, in all probability, not a day when no drug loads slip through three layers of inspections. The brutal wars Mexico's drug cartels are waging against each other in major cities south of the border are largely over access to gateways into the US, the world's most lucrative market for illicit drugs.
How big is that market? According to expert testimony to a Congressional committee in June, revenues from illicit drug sales in the US generated about $60-billion (about R471 931 200 000) in 2000, the last year the government compiled figures for an annual report on drug spending. To get that $60 billion into context: it equals what the 22 rich industrialised countries spend on foreign aid to the world's poor.
As President George W. Bush phrased it at the beginning of his first term in office: "The main reason why drugs are shipped through Mexico to the United States is because United States citizens use drugs."
#1
I'm about as conservative as they come but I'm with Bill Buckley on this one. We need to legalize marijuana and probably cocaine as well.
Before we do, we need to change our laws to make it legal to discriminate in hiring against people who use these drugs, and make selling them to children subject to even more draconian punishment. That said, they need to be made legal. Then tax the hell out of them.
Once they were legal there wouldn't be so much of a cachet about them and it would be more of a matter of personal choice, just as alcohol is now. We'd save money on law enforcement, take money from organized crime, make money on taxes, and stop a lot of the killing in the minority community. We'd have some more users, granted, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs.
Marijuana use, IMHO, is less problematic than booze. I've seen liquored-up folks do some damned crazy things, while the potheads I've known were generally threatening only to whatever junk food they could get their hands on.
The only way to stop illegal drugs, if we were REALLY serious about it, would be to summarily shoot everyone found with ANY drugs. We'd be wading in blood up to our ankles, but not for long because once the word got out that the U.S. was truly serious about enforcement, like Singapore is, most would-be smugglers would not risk it.
I don't think that's likely to happen, however, as long as we have Dems in the country (Democrat=criminal/criminal coddler). Since we can't have that solution, we should go to the other end and just make them legal.
Right now we have the worst of both worlds, and that situation has got to come to an end one way or the other. We just can't afford to fund it anymore.
#3
stop a lot of the killing in the minority community
I have my doubts about that. Until you change the underlying culture of entitlement and failure the young men will kill (each other, mostly) to prove their 'worth'.
#4
You wanna turn this country into a bunch of soft-headed, spaced out morons then go ahead and legalize it. We'll be living in tents and weaving baskets while the Chinese, Japanese and Indians continue to develop their technologies and leave us in the dust. Then see how long it is before the terrorists have us on our knees praying to Allan because we're too feeble minded to fight back. But you might want to check out Amsterdam first and think about whether you really want that kind of future for this country.
I think it's a monstrous, horrible lie when they say we can't secure the border. I think the real problem is that too many people have too much money at stake and it's corrupted our government. I don't care about their money and I don't give a damn about all those people trying to drive across the border at San Ysidro. They can wait until we're sure they're OK or they can stay in Mexico. I don't care. My responsibility is to my children and not them.
#5
If you legalized it, it would castrate the drug gangs and cartels. If you could go to 7-11 and pick up a pack of joints, why would you drive down into the hood and risk getting shot at?
Of course it would create other problems as a result. An initial wave of addicts from the full-on party that would ensue should be expected. After a few years it would die down and become a part of the underculture, like Amsterdam.
#6
Ebbang Uluque6305,
Are you going to start using marijuana and cocaine just because its illegal? Probably not, and most likely you are somewhat representative of the population in whole. Some would try it out of curiosity. Some would become addicts. By some already do that now and that will never change.
I'm not pro-drug, but the idea does have some merit as one aspect of dealing with the problem.
#9
Bah, we could end the drug war in two generations, we lack the spine to do it. The answer is simple.
Use drugs and get caught, you die.
Sell drugs and get caught, you die.
Smuggle drugs and get caught, you die.
Manufacture/grow drugs and get caught, you die.
America has long forgotten what punishment means...because prison was never considered punishment in the past, it was merely where you were held for punishment.
#10
If Jesus had smoked dope he'd have lived on his mom's couch till 40 and died in anonymity.
Posted by: ed ||
08/22/2008 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#11
You gotta hold the line, folks. If you don't our society is screwed. If you want to castrate the drug gangs and cartels then do it the old fashion way and cut their balls off. If you legalize their product you make them respectable citizens and the corruption becomes even more pervasive than it already is. Face it, if you can legally buy a pack of joints at your local convenience store many of you will. What will that do for combat readiness? And if you do it once you might like it and then you'll do it again. Pretty soon you'll be sitting in front of the TV laughing at the cartoons as if it's really funny instead of just pathetic.
#12
If Jesus had smoked dope, I'll guarantee it wouldn't be illegal now.
Actually, under-21 drinking wasn't illegal in Biblical times. Men and women also got married after puberty. And chemical stimulants have been known for thousands of years and weren't illegal until the early 20th century.
#13
You wanna turn this country into a bunch of soft-headed, spaced out morons then go ahead and legalize it. We'll be living in tents and weaving baskets while the Chinese, Japanese and Indians continue to develop their technologies and leave us in the dust. Then see how long it is before the terrorists have us on our knees praying to Allan because we're too feeble minded to fight back. But you might want to check out Amsterdam first and think about whether you really want that kind of future for this country.
Chemical stimulants started being illegal in the early 20th century. In the 19th century, opium was legal worldwide (including stateside, where it was imbibed in the more potent forms of laudanum and cough syrup) and technically illegal in China. And yet the West and its colonies advanced much more rapidly than China. The fact is that drugs appeal to a certain segment of the population that is also prone to alcohol and other addictions. We might be better off shifting the budget for drug-related enforcement to anti-drug advertising and the treatment of drug addiction.
#15
Having put a kid through rehab and spent too many evenings in group therapy with poeple whose lives are beyond repair (even if they do stay off drugs) I tell you:
1) the current fatality rates are nothing compared to that if drugs are legalized.
2) What you save in law enforcement you would spend in hospitalization, rehab and long term care.
Consider the following, related to the legal drug alchohol:
Alcohol contributes to 100,000 deaths annually, making it the third leading cause of preventable mortality in the US, after tobacco (another drug).
40 percent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
Review of Coast Guard reports suggests alcohol involvement in 60 percent of boating fatalities, including persons who fell overboard.
Between 48% and 64% of people who die in fires have blood alcohol levels indicating intoxication.
alcohol has been involved in violence caused by 86 percent of homicide offenders, 37 percent of assault offenders, 60 percent of sexual offenders, 57 percent of men and 27 percent of women involved in marital violence, and 13 percent of child abusers.
Based on victim reports, each year 183,000 (37%) rapes and sexual assaults involve alcohol use by the offender, as do just over 197,000 (15%) robberies, about 661,000 (27%) aggravated assaults, and nearly 1.7 million (25%) simple assaults.
One-quarter of all emergency room admissions, one-third of all suicides, and more than half of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol-related.
This all ignores the impact in missed work, school, and retarded emotional development.
#17
I'd decriminalize marijuana to start with then regulate it like alcohol and then tax the crap out of it. Though I've never tried drugs or cigarettes and see no need to I think the war on drugs wrt marijuana is pretty dumb. There was a reason prohibition didn't work. Take away the carrot and the illegal drug industry gets cut way down. I really don't think you'll see any spike in use because of legality or not. There will always be a certain percentage of folks in any society that will have the addictive personality. If anything, it puts a lot of drug dealers out of business.
Don't forget people who drop litter, park in restricted areas, and fail to return their library books. They all must die. Then the world will be a better place.
#19
Everything that can be said, has been said. The border south of Tucson is a sieve...particularly the Mexican border with our native americans (Tohono O'Oldham) southwest of Tucson. Legalization would decimate the viscious Mexican Cartels, not to mention our own home grown gangsters...
Why don't we at least try fending and properly securing the border FIRST, before we surrender?
We have yet to do ANYTHING on any of the borders to secure them properly. The efforts we put forth now are miniscule in comparison to what we cousl and shoudl do, simply to prevent terrorism and illegal immigration.
#21
fencing not fenDing. I hate it when Im using IE instead of Firefox - Firefox catches my typos and dyslexic mistakes (dyslexic ones are the worst because it can be badly wrong and my brain reads it as being right).
#22
Legalize marijuana, but keep the rest illegal IMHO. I don't use myself, but from what I have seen, and I know several people on the medical program, it is no worse than alcohol.
As of now, the war on drugs has not only been a complete failure, but a restrictions on our freedoms. Police are more militarized, no-knock raid warrants are issued on pure hearsay instead of viable police work, draconian zero-tolerance drug policies for every level of jobs instead of for the ones that should warrant it. Marijuana is now easier to get in middle school and high school than alcohol.
I also don't buy into the argument that if we legalize it, all the youths suddenly just park on their parent's couch. Most youth have tried marijuana. There are tons of adults that use it recreationally. Legalization of the drug and treating it like alcohol while taxing it would impact society little and would deny a good chunk of profit from the drug mafias.
For the rest, secure the border, use good police work to get the smugglers and for problem dealers, treat it as a capital crime punishable by death.
Denver Police have closed their investigation into the mysterious death of an indigent man in a suite of a luxury Denver hotel. They announced that his death was suicide, and that there was no link to terrorism. An FBI spokesman has also stated that the incident has no apparent terrorism connection. The man was Saleman Abdirahman Dirie and, the coronerÂ’s verdict notwithstanding, his death raises far more questions than have been answered by the Denver police, who seemed quite happy to wash their hands of the whole affair. But the story surrounding DirieÂ’s death is bizarre, and needs to be unraveled.
The facts, as far as they have been released, are these: Saleman Abdirahman Dirie was a 29-year-old Canadian citizen, a Muslim, and a former refugee from Somalia with no visible means of support and no money. He came to Denver from Ottawa by bus and checked into an upscale hotel (where the least expensive rooms rent for nearly $250 a night) for which he paid cash. There are reports that several thousand dollars in cash were also found in his room. He was not seen again until his body was found six days later next to a one pound jar of sodium cyanide crystals.
If you consider that this all took place in the city where the Democratic National Convention was about to take place, suspicion becomes alarm. The questions themselves are disquieting. Why was he in Denver? Where did he get the cash to pay for his room? Where did he get a full pound of sodium cyanide crystals, enough to poison hundreds of people, and what was he planning to do with it?
Sodium cyanide is one of several cyanide salts that are among the most rapidly acting of all known poisons. These crystals are potent inhibitors of respiration, depriving the body of its ability to use oxygen. Its effect is deadly and swift. Mixed with acid, it becomes significantly more potent as it generates a highly toxic gas. Its close cousin, hydrogen cyanide, was used by the Nazis to produce Zyclon B, the gas of choice to murder millions of Jews in the NazisÂ’ infernal gas chambers. In short, a little goes a long way. So no one needs a pound of sodium cyanide to commit suicide, when a mere taste will do. A more likely scenario is that his curiosity got the better of him and he opened the jar, accidentally breathing or ingesting some of the cyanide. That would make it, perhaps, an accidental poisoning, but hardly a suicide.
The more important question remains: why else would anyone need a pound of cyanide? The timing of DirieÂ’s visit to Denver, less than two weeks before the Democratic convention, raises an alarming possibility. National Republican and Democratic Conventions have been considered a high value target since 9/11 and the last round was surrounded by heavy (if imperfect) security. Compromising the water or HVAC systems in the Convention Center is a plan that might seem quite attractive in the name of jihad. And it could kill several hundred people.
The combined circumstances make the possibility that Dirie was an operative part of a jihad plot very real. Evolving strategies among the terrorists groups seem to lean towards small cells carrying out limited attacks on prime targets. This situation could be that, with Dirie being a one man jihadi whose job was to place the poison where it would do the most damage. On the other hand, if a very large attack were planned, as seems possible in this case, he might have been one of a larger group of terrorists, each with a single role to play. In this case, he would not have known the parts of the plots or the people who would carry them out. If the accidental death scenario is correct, then his extreme incompetence, which ended in his contamination and death, would indicate that the latter situation would be the most plausible one.
And that means that there are others like Dirie still out there, taking courage in the statements of the Denver police that the case is closed. As the festivities preceding the Democratic Convention are about to begin, the time to take this possibility seriously is now. There are terrorist cells active throughout the country, using mosques and community centers, coffee houses, homes, and street meetings to develop and carry out their plans. Despite what the Denver police have said, this appears to be far more than a dysfunctional man taking his own life.
There is a pervading opinion among our leaders that Americans need to be protected from uncomfortable and frightening truths. Instead of giving us the opportunity to protect ourselves and our families, they prefer to tell us that everything is okay and under control, even when the threat is real and current. The time to be honest with the American people began a long time ago and the time for concern is now.
#2
The more important question remains: why else would anyone need a pound of cyanide? The timing of Dirie's visit to Denver, less than two weeks before the Democratic convention, raises an alarming possibility.
#4
Jihadists wouldn't do a hit against their cheerleaders and supporters. Maybe it was intended for the McCain office or something.
Either way, I think the whitewashing and burying of the story by the police and officials is disgraceful.
#6
I imagine that even if the Denver Police don't know what to do the Secret Service is all over this. It's possible they just don't want to talk about it for security reasons. After all they are the *secret* service and not the CIA.
#7
Sounds like "scared shitless" aptly describes the situation. Meanwhile, I just heard some snippets from the Mayor of Denver who was trying to smooth over the mini-gestapo he has organized to deal with the rabble rousers they expect. Sounds like his preps make Chicago police look like smallfry. They like horsies out there don't they, OP ? Probably will look like the US Cavalry riding to the rescue. I just hope they use some good, solid pipe, not something that breaks like the current crop of bats in MLB.
#8
It sounds bizarre and sinister, but sometimes people do weird shit without a plan. Why would a jihadi want to poison Donks? They are their best friends and most useful idiots in the world. It doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
#10
Although suicide is not mentioned in the Kuran, it is anathematized in the Hadith where Muhammad states, "Whosoever shall kill himself shall suffer in the fires of hell." On the other hand, recent legal scholars have argued that suicide in quest of jihad is forgivable.
He worked at some point or knows someone who worked at a place that does metal plating. He obtained the substance by stealing it. He didn't "need" a pound of it, he simply had access to a one pound container of it and took it. The material is fairly common in various industrial processes, particularly processes involving plating of things like electronic connector pins and the like. It isn't all that hard to find if you know what you are looking for and where to look for it.
I think he had a pound of it because that is the size container he had access to, not because he went seeking a pound of it.
"Mixed with acid, it becomes significantly more potent as it generates a highly toxic gas"
Which will happen the instant it touches stomach acid.
Logically, a democratic Government in Pakistan should be less anti-India than a military dictatorship. For the simple reason that the latter needs an alibi to justify its essentiality for the country. And what better than an 'inimical' India, a threat which only a strong Army led by a powerful leader can counter. I realised this difference when I met four Pakistani members of the National Assembly at Colombo in 1999. Three of them belonged to the Nawaz Sharif-led Muslim League; they were all in favour of normal India-Pakistan relations for the sake of trade and the resulting prosperity. They were quite happy with the idea of dividing Jammu & Kashmir along the LOC. The fourth was a Baluch who wanted Indian help in his struggle against Islamabad.
Prima facie, the departure of Gen Pervez Musharraf should be of no particular concern to India. In any case, he was suspected to have engineered Kargil, to have boycotted Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee's Lahore visit, et al. Moreover, he was perceived as Washington's ally and hence could be a possible impediment to India-US relations. He favoured the peace process only after 9/11 and at American instance. It could also be argued that a democratic Pakistan would be militarily less effective and hence more desirable than a General at the top.
The India-Pakistan syndrome, however, is not so uncomplicated. Can Pakistan be relied upon to remain democratic for any length of time? The factual record is that since 1947, Pakistan has been ruled more by military dictators than otherwise -- from Gen Ayub Khan to Gen Zia-ul-Haq to Gen Musharraf. Another truth is that few Muslim countries are governed by democratic regimes. Malaysia is more an Islamic oligarchy than a democracy although only about 52 per cent of its population is Muslim. Indonesia had a long spell of Sukarno, a non-soldier dictator and then Gen Suharto. Bangladesh has struggled with democracy but not consistently. The history of Iran since 1979 is one of Ayatollahcracy and before that monarchy.
The central Asian republics are yet to settle down; their tradition is dictatorial -- first sultans, then czarist and thereafter Communist. The Islamic heartland, namely Arabia, is not democratic even by pretension. Turkey has a military spine, a secular judiciary and day-to-day electoral democracy which is subject to Army intervention. All this despite the Ataturk revolution, Europeanisation and the general Turkish desire to join the EU. The likes of Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo are in a state of flux. Egypt and Libya have had the same rulers for decades, as has Algeria with an occasional violent election. Morocco is a monarchy while little Tunisia experiments sincerely with elections. Muslim West Africa has a variety of regimes but none democratic.
At the fundamental level, Islam and democracy are a contradiction in terms. A devout Muslim, in the course of the namaaz, declares five times a day that there is no god other than Allah. The last prophet delivered the final message 14 centuries ago. For the last 10 centuries, it is all taqlid (traditions); the gates of ijtehaad (reinterpretation) were closed with the end of the Abbasid dynasty of caliphs at Baghdad. Anyone who claims to be a messiah is expelled from Islam as was Ghulam Ahmed Jilani, who founded the Ahmadiya denomination. A section of the Sunni ulema in Pakistan has proposed that even the Shias should be declared as non-Muslims.
How can one god, one faith, one collective will coexist with democracy wherein each voter has the right to believe and think his own way? In his book, The Future of Muslim Civilisation, Ziauddin Sardar drives home the point that modernism is un-Islamic. There is no Arabic or Urdu synonym for the word democracy. Jamhouriat, which means the people's collective will, is often touted as the Islamic concept of democracy.
Hence the question arises, how long can Mr Asif Ali Zardari and Mr Nawaz Sharif be expected to last in power and provide stability? With the advent of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and extremism, that stability is equally important to India. If the mullahs take over Pakistan, their next target will be India where they will find any number of supporters.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/22/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the mullahs take over Pakistan...
It won't be long before somewho has to go over and kick their asses.
#2
STARS-N-STRIPES OP-ED > MUSHARAFS EXIT FROM POWER MAY NOT MEAN IMPROVEMENT/SECURITY; + WAFF.com > ARUNDJHAT ROY:KASHMIR NEEDS FREEDOM FROM INDIA [ditto India from Kashmir] + CRACKS APPEAR IN THE SEPARATISTS CAMPS [Muslim-Islamist].
#3
Democracy versus Islam? Over the centuries, people have tried a wide variety of governments. For the last two centuries, the most successful system has been democracy. During the twentieth century, a large number of countries converted to some form of democracy. I can't think of one country that has kept an older system, that has prospered. Japan is a good example of a country that has grown immeasurabily richer, more powerful, and less militant among it's neighbors by changing within a generation to democracy. Countries that cling to an eighth century system for organizing and maintaining people is doomed. The more efficient and productive system will evenually win out - every time.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/22/2008 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
In Hanover, New Hampshire this past June, two young men received commissions as officers in the United States Marine Corps the day before they graduated from Dartmouth College. The Marines? Why not Wall Street? Or law school? Or any of the other lives of comfort and status so readily available to graduates of the Ivy League?
"We reject the pernicious belief, commonly held at our most highly esteemed institutions, that fighting our nation's battles is someone else's job."
For more by second lieutenants Michael Knapp and Ethan Mefford, look here.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/22/2008 08:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
I read the story. Outstanding kids, actually men. I think they'd eat John Kerry for intellectual lunch.
#2
Forbes just listed West Point as the country's best public college and 6th in the country overall, including the Ivies.
US News & World Report chose West Point as "the best public liberal arts school in the country" and 14th overall among all US liberal arts colleges public or private.
I'd stack the Academy's cadets against John "Watch me play soldier" Kerry any day.
WHILE oil prices have declined somewhat of late, the volatility of the market and the political and religious unrest in major oil-producing countries has Americans worrying more than ever about energy security. But they have little to fear -- contrary to common understanding, there are robust stockpiles of oil around the globe that could see us through any foreseeable calamities on the world market.
True, trouble for the world's energy supplies could come from many directions. Hurricanes and other natural disasters could suddenly disrupt oil production or transportation. Iran loudly and regularly proclaims that it can block oil exports from the Persian Gulf. The anti-American rhetoric of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela raises fears of an export cutoff there. And ongoing civil unrest wreaks havoc with Nigeria's output.
Even worse, this uncertainty comes in the context of worrisome reports that oil producers have little spare capacity, meaning that they could not quickly ramp up production to compensate for a disruption.
But such fears rest on a misunderstanding. The world actually has enormous spare oil capacity. It has simply moved. In the past, major oil producers like Saudi Arabia controlled it. But for years the world's major consumers have bought extra oil to fill their emergency petroleum reserves. Moreover, whereas the world's reserve supply once sat in relatively inaccessible pools, much of it now sits in easily accessible salt caverns and storage tanks. And consumers control the spigots. During a supply disruption, Americans would no longer have to rely on the good will of foreign governments.
#4
it could surely harass commercial tanker traffic. But it would be hard pressed to sustain an anti-shipping campaign sufficient to reduce oil flows drastically for weeks on end,
They don't have to sink a lot, maybe not even any; they just have to make the attacks plausible so Lloyds (etc.) won't insure the tankers.
#5
Nice analysis of how the reserves and alternate production can smooth over a local disrution of oil produciton in given places. But the politically loaded (lefty?) conclusions drawn are just pulled out of his ass - there is no relationship between them and the points he makes above them. His analaysis, in fact, points nearly to the complete opposite.
I disagree highly with the final conclusions.
Deterring an attack on a nuclear armed Iran is a GOOD thing? Not doubling the strategic reserve is a GOOD thing? Not expanding production here is a GOOD thing?
Wildly wrong conclusions.
Why is it good that the US be dissauded from destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program and its IRBM/ICBM program? Does he not know the effect of even a single EMP detonation over Europe or the US?
And this is a more likely scenario: Imagine an Iranian shorter range high altitude EMP over the oil producing regions on the Saudi-Kuwaiti areas, and over the Emirates. Think about all the computer controls needed to produce and refine oil, and them being suddely fried. That puts Iran in the command seat for oil production in the gulf, assuming they suvive the counterstrikes.
So again, how is deterring an attack on the mullah's nuclear weapons capability in Iran a GOOD thing? If we can suvive the oil shock as he says we can, then that's incentive to hit them hard, and remove the threats, since we can endure the loss of Iran's oil.
So, he posits that we can suvive short and medium oil shocks with the current reserves. Fair enough.
So why is it not a good thing to expand our capacity to better endure prolonged production interruptions?
Other places produce large amounts of oil and can jump production in the face of localized disruptions elsewhere. Fair enough.
So why is it not a good idea to spend the money to produce even more here (plus alternate enegry, nukes, electic cars, nat gas as a vehicle fuel, etc) so we place even smaller demand on international supplies -- and our increased reserve goes further so disruptions have an even lesser effect on us?
#8
John Stossel is more Libertarian in outlook, with shared weaknesses. Markets don't work in monopoly situations or when the supplier is trying to weaken/destroy the consumer's civilization.
Posted by: ed ||
08/22/2008 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Markets work only when profit and loss is the objective. Suicidal ideological positions invalidate market theory.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Denver Police have closed their investigation into the mysterious death of an indigent man in a suite of a luxury Denver hotel. They announced that his death was suicide, and that there was no link to terrorism. An FBI spokesman has also stated that the incident has no apparent terrorism connection. The man was Saleman Abdirahman Dirie and, the coronerÂ’s verdict notwithstanding, his death raises far more questions than have been answered by the Denver police, who seemed quite happy to wash their hands of the whole affair. But the story surrounding DirieÂ’s death is bizarre, and needs to be unraveled. 
Peter Robinson, National Review
By EUGENE GHOLZ and DARYL G. PRESS
