President Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan today, meeting with President Hamid Karzai to pressure him about better government and improved security in the war-torn nation.
Obama will "engage President Karzai...to make him understand that in his second term, there are certain things that have been not paid attention to, almost since day one," national security adviser James Jones told reporters aboard Air Force One, bound for Kabul.
Jones cited such items as "a merit-based system for appointment of key government officials, battling corruption, (and) taking the fight to the narco-traffickers, which fuels, provides a lot of the economic engine for the insurgents," Jones said.
This is a "strategic moment" in the eight-and-a-half-year-old war Jones added, given the president's order late last year to increase the U.S. troop level by about 30,000. By late summer, some 100,000 U.S. troops are expected to be fighting in Afghanistan; Obama also hopes to start withdrawing U.S. forces by the middle of 2011.
Obama. who had been at Camp David, flew Air Force One overnight to Bagram Air Base near Kabul. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and ambassador Karl Eikenberry met the president after his 13-hour flight.
The president is also expected to address U.S. troops before returning to Washington early Monday.
#1
Because until President Obama explained it to him, he couldn't possibly have understood properly. But now that he does, things will go as they ought.
Posted by: trailing wife on the other computer ||
03/28/2010 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
be nice if Karzai left Obama sitting there while he went back to his palace for dinner with the family
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/28/2010 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
Seriously, is he setting up a Swiss Type bank account?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/28/2010 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Check out the Rooters Photos here. The troops (all 25 of them) are kept behind a fence and TOTUS POTSUS has to lean over it to shake hands with the patient group of placid troops. A veritable mutual detachment society. No drama here. Move on.
Its a tautology. Barry's idea is that his government is better because it is, just like the sky is blue because it is. EVERYONE better just know because Barry is President things are good and better get better. Thats all any one that is NOT Barry needs to know. /Sarc
#10
This is what it looks like when a commander in chief rallies the troops.
Frank #2 - I agree with NS -- you destroyed multiple targets with one warhead.
Posted by: Matt ||
03/28/2010 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I went through the photo slide show at Nimble Spemble's link. There's a white split rail-style fence between the president and the troops -- he's doing the macho thing with one foot up on the top as he leans over to shake hands. Are the troops being herded past the receiving spot? Because otherwise the pose doesn't make sense...
As for the rest of the photos, President Karzai needs to realize how lucky they were taken at all, 'cause if he doesn't seriously shape up, next time he'll get the Zionist treatment.
#12
Ah. Explains the random unsolicited stat clip cnn threw out about how more and more people think the Afghan theatre is important. Shoulda guessed it.
Mr Obama's brief trip was expected to include a one-on-one meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, an expanded meeting with Mr Karzai's cabinet and U.S. officials, and a speech to American military personnel.
The President left his Camp David retreated unannounced late Saturday and flew non-stop through the night aboard Air Force One, landing at Bagram air base just north of Kabul, where he was greeted by General Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO commander, as well as Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador.
Mr Obama's pyrhhic domestic victory on healthcare reform last week supposedly gives him political cover space to screw up something else turn his attention to the Afghan war, which has no mixed support from Democrats the American public amid rising casualties, costs, and corruption among Afghan leaders.
The trip allows him to see the early results of his troop increase strategy, show support for military personnel and refute critics who say his focus on passing healthcare legislation has diverted attention from foreign policy.
Mr Obama traveled to Afghanistan during the 2008 U.S. presidential election but has not been back since his victory over Republican Senator John McCain, whose criticism at the time prodded the Democrat's trip.
The White House official said weather and logistical reasons had thwarted previous attempts at a presidential visit since he took office in January 2009.
At least 945 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to an Associated Press count.
British forces are to be withdrawn from Helmand and replaced by United States Marines under controversial new plans being drawn up by American commanders
#1
Although British troops have been praised for their valour, the consensus within the American military is that control of the province has slipped away because of inadequate numbers, poor equipment and thin logistical support.
Labour using British servicemen as disposable pawns, yet again. They have savaged the military capability (to blow the money saved on idiotic socialistic projects), while at the same time grossly overextended its operations.
[Dawn] Claiming that they were not in direct conflict with India, Taliban have said there was a possibility of reconciliation even as they justified the February 26 Kabul attack on Indians as a legitimate action.
In an interview with Times of India, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed his organisation did not want India out of Afghanistan but assailed the country for supporting Hamid Karzai's government and western forces.
"If the Taliban return to power, we would like to maintain normal relations with countries including India. It's possible for the Taliban and India to reconcile with each other," Mujahid said.
He said: "India's role is different from those countries that sent troops to occupy Afghanistan." At the same time, he added that "India isn't neutral in the Afghan conflict as it is supporting the military presence of US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan and working for the strengthening of the Hamid Karzai government".
Also, he said, "India has never condemned the civilian casualties caused by the occupying forces".
Asked about the February 26 attack in which Indians, housed in two hotels in Kabul, were targeted, the spokesman said Taliban were responsible for it.
He said it was carried out by "Taliban fighters after we got intelligence information that RAW agents were holding a meeting there". The attack claimed the lives of seven Indians. Claiming that India was supporting the Afghan government and the western forces, Mujahid said the country was "therefore, a legitimate target for us".
Asked if Taliban wanted India out of Afghanistan, he said, "We are not saying that India should be out of Afghanistan. Nor can India be completely expelled from Afghanistan."
The Taliban spokesman noted that India and Afghanistan have had historic ties and said: "The Taliban aren't in any direct conflict with India. India troops aren't part of Nato forces, they haven't occupied Afghanistan."
He claimed that Taliban "favour neither India nor Pakistan" but hastened to add that they cannot "ignore Pakistan as it is a neighbouring Islamic country" and was on good terms with them when they were in power.
"India, on the other hand, backed anti-Taliban forces of the Northern Alliance and refused to do business with our government... India backed the NA, and is now supporting the Karzai government."
Just to recap quickly for those who haven't been paying attention: After the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance and the newly-created "Southern Alliance" that hacked up Karzai chased the Taliban government out, the Pak government decided it was going to keep them ticking along in the interests of "Strategic Depth." If there was peace and prosperity in Afghanistan then Pakistan would have nothing to do to draw attention to its pretensions to being a regional power.
Mullah Omar's Quetta Shurah took over conduct of the war in Kandahar and the south, operating openly. AP, UPI, TASS, Xinhua, and Vanity Fair all knew where to find them for interviews, though the Pak intel services were unable to do so. Hekmatyar came back from Iran, escaped a dronezap, and set up shop under the protection of the MMA government and the Jamaat-e-Islami, just like he'd done in the Good Old Days. Even though they didn't like him the Quetta Shurah and al-Qaeda allied with him, assuming there was nobody for him to sell them out to, other than the Americans, and that the Americans wouldn't let him be in charge.
Haqqani allied with al-Qaeda and set up shop in North Wazoo, operating in the eastern part of the Afghanistan. The Pak government remains incapable for finding them, even though they're listed in the phone book. We've been pointing their locations out lately with regular dronezaps.
Al-Qaeda set up shop, with Binny probably in Chitral when he's not traveling. Zawahiri hangs around pretty much with the Haqqani guys, which is the general area where al-Q's operations shurah is.
There is an al-Qaeda in Afghanistan branch and an al-Qaeda in Pakistain branch. The latter is made up of Pakistain's local crop of terrorist organizations, most notably Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Fazlur Rehman Khalil's outfit, whatever they're called these days, and likely Jaish-e-Muhammad.
Had things remained in that state the status would probably still be quo within Pak. They didn't, so it's not. When Perv Musharraf was pushed out of power Nawaz Sharif and his brother reestablished the PML-N in control of the Punjab. Uncle Fester was hand-in-glove with the Talibs.
Things got out of hand with the rise of the domestic Taliban. First there was Nek Muhammad, then Abdullah Mehsud, and finally Baitullah, setting up alliances that crossed some unusual clan and tribal lines. Many was the comely 12-year-old packed off to seal this or that deal, with folks who a mere ten or twenty years before had been on heavy weapons shootin' terms.
Finally there was the TNSM and its leader, Sufi Mohammad, sitting in jug for several years after the fiasco of 2001. With the MMA in power Sufi was a protected species, his conditions in jug no doubt pretty posh. Fazl and Qazi and Sami (until he was squeezed out) were convincing Perv that Sufi was much too holy to be handled roughly. The old man's son-in-law, Mullah Fazlullah, was driving around in his SUV in Swat, broadcasting on his illegal FM channel whenever he got the urge, and he was making alliances with the Mehsuds and with their circle of affiliates. The Mighty Pak Army actually went into Swat and restored order just as Perv was exiting the scene. Nawaz and, to a lesser extent, Zardari pulled back on the order restoration thing and decided to be peacemakers. As we saw, that worked well.
When Swat erupted Sufi was released from jug to act as "peacemaker" with his son-in-law, the objective being to establish shariah throughout the land. Sufi made a deal that was advantageous to the TNSM and to the Talibs, which involved the government caving on all points. Mullah Fazlullah proceeded to break it. By that point the TNSM had ceased to have an independent existence -- it had been swallowed up by the Pak Taliban, the TTP. When the TTP began oozing out of Swat in the direction of Islamabad itself even Nawaz couldn't stop the government from protecting its existence. After all, no government, no boodle.
This time when the Mighty Pak Army went into Swat they weren't fighting the TNSM, the Pony League of Terrorism. They were fighting harder core tough guys, to include Arabs, Chechens, and Uzbeks. It took them longer to clean the place out, and the bad guyz will continue trying to sneak back in.
Adding to the Pak government's concerns was the fact that Baitullah was turning into Pakistain's Zarqawi, only without the insanity. He was responsible for Benazir's assassination, he was responsible for kaboom after kaboom, directed at the Pak government, and he was spreading his tentacles everywhere in open alliance with al-Qaeda. He was also in alliance with the Taliban, especially with the Haqqani shurah, though professing subordination to Mullah Omar. Pak Talibs were trotting off to Afghanistan to fight the infidel and were returning with their skills honed to fight their own government. At one point boomers hit Pak's very intel HQ. That was probably the tipping point for ISI. Even Hamid Gul couldn't do much from that point.
War's not a static thing. Both sides -- or in the case of Pakistain, all eleven sides -- are making moves all the time. Serendipity occasionally dips.
Baitullah got dronezapped. He's now dead, whether blown into his component parts all at once or lingering for weeks in agony is irrelevant. No sooner was Hakimullah named his successor than the drones started looking for him, too. Eventually they seem to have gotten him. While they were looking for Baitullah and Hakimullah they were also hitting other TTP, Qaeda, Haqqani, and Hekmatyar big turbans. Great was the carnage upon the land.
While all this was going on the Marines, the Brits, and the Afghans were warning about the impending operation in Marjah and the vicinity. There were behind the scenes negotiations to break the Taliban from al-Qaeda, Hekmatyar from both, and all three from the Pak Talibs. We mentioned we were going to start drone zapping Quetta.
Last November the ISI moved the Quetta Shurah to Karachi. By this month half the 15-member shurah had been arrested. Qureshi sez today that the Pak government is against a Taliban government in Afghanistan, possibly without his lips falling off.
Mullah Omar is at this point feeling naked and misunderstood. There isn't anyone he can make reassuring noises to except India, but he's doing what he can.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[16 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
I vote this goes to the Classics, Fred, or in a new file for summaries. You've done this a few times before, and it's really helpful for those of us who can't keep it all in our heads. In the meantime, I've saved this link as the start of my own summaries file. I'll have to go through the archives to find your previous opuses (opusii? Someone who studied Latin will know.)
Let the laughter -- and the the six hour speeches, and the fainting translators -- begin!
[Ma'an] The rotating presidency of the Arab League will officially be handed over to Libya, ahead of the summit's inauguration on Saturday in Sirtre, Libya, replacing Qatar.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddaffi will replace Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani of Qatar as president of the Arab League. After the consultation session, this year's summit conveners will attend a closed door session to discuss five agenda items, including Jerusalem and the possible withdrawal of the Arab Peace Initiative.
While Arab leaders began arriving for the Sirtre symposium on Friday and Saturday, seven leaders confirmed they will not attend this year, including UAE Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, King of Bahrain Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifah, and Sultan of Oman Qaboos bin Said. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will not attend for heath reasons.
Lebanon will not participate in the summit, while Saudi Arabia has neither confirmed nor declined its invitation to the 22nd series of high-level meetings.
Those leaders already present in the Libyan city include Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, President of Mauritania Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, Sheikh Sharif Ash-Sheikh Ahmad of Somalia, Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan, Emir of Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad As-Sabah, and personal representatives of the king of Bahrain.
Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad also arrived in Sirtre, Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh as well as Saud Bin Rashed Al-Mu'la, representing the UAE, and Fahed bin Mahmoud Al-Sa'eed, the deputy of the Omani prime minister.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will also attend the summit, having been received by President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looks like about a third of the Arab League attendees are either terrorists or genocidal maniacs!
The United Arab Emirates navy is thought to have opened fire on a small patrol vessel from Saudi Arabia after a dispute over water boundaries.
According to one report, two Saudi sailors were injured in the alleged bombardment. The Saudi vessel was forced to surrender, and its sailors were delivered into custody in Abu Dhabi for several days, before being released and handed over to the Saudi embassy earlier this week.
The incident has shocked diplomats who hope the countries, both key American allies, will help implement the West's strategy to constrain Iran's nuclear and military ambitions.
The clash happened in disputed waters between the coasts of Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and the peninsula on which the gas-rich state of Qatar sits. The seabed is rich with oil deposits, while the Dolphin pipeline project to carry natural gas direct from Qatar to Abu Dhabi has provoked irritation in the Saudi authorities. Nevertheless, direct conflict between the two countries' armed forces is highly unusual.
The Gulf is one of the most heavily armed regions in the world. The Saudi government has been building up its army and air force for years in response to what it sees as a regional threat from Iran.
The UAE was slower to join the arms race, despite a long-running row with Iran over three Gulf islands previously under Abu Dhabi control which were seized by the late Shah in 1971 on the night the Emirates celebrated their independence.
But now the UAE, despite its small size, is the fourth largest purchaser of weaponry on the international market in the world.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It is not the time nor the place to play territorial pissing games right now. Greater issues loom.
#2
Saudi leaders have often discussed openly the takover of the UAE. UAE look to the world as they sit between Iran and Saudi, both hostile to UAE and their lifestyle.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/28/2010 11:50 Comments ||
Top||
Chapter 1,427 in Obama's How To Lose Friends & Influence.
British politicians should be "less deferential" towards the United States and more willing to say no, an influential group of MPs urges in a report. The Foreign Affairs Committee says it is time to reconsider the term "the special relationship", which it complains is overused by politicians and the media, serving "simultaneously to devalue its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the UK." Instead, the MPs conclude, Britain should acknowledge that it has "a" special relationship with the US - as do other American allies, partners and regional neighbours.
Britain should adopt "a hard-headed political approach to the relationship and a realistic sense of the UK's limits", and not always assume that America's priorities coincide with Britain's, say the MPs. "British and European politicians have been guilty of over-optimism about the extent of influence they have over the US," said Mike Gapes, chairman of the committee. Certainly the UK must continue to position itself closely alongside the US but there is a need to be less deferential and more willing to say no where our interests diverge." He added: "The extent of political influence which the UK has exercised on US decision-making as a consequence of its military commitments is likely to diminish. Over the longer-term the UK is unlikely to be able to influence the US to the extent it has in the past."
The 14-member, cross-party committee says that the perception after the Iraq War that the UK was a "poodle" to America's wishes was highly damaging, and reported dissatisfaction among American generals over the capabilities of British forces gives "cause for concern". "The fact that these perceptions exist at all remains disturbing, given the considerable effort that has been expended and the sacrifices that have been made by British armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Sir David Manning, a former British ambassador to the US, told the committee: "The key is to work in partnership with the United States when our interests dictate -- and they will in many areas, although not necessarily on every occasion." But the report also warns the British government to be wary of assuming that British and American military strategy was aligned. Use of British territory for rendition of prisoners was described as "disturbing", and the MPs say that the secrecy surrounding rendition of terrorist suspects by the US through the naval base of Diego Garcia, which is leased from Britain, was regrettable.
The publication of the 244-page report comes at a time of apparent cooling in relations between the two countries. The committee heard it was "unsurprising" that President Barack Obama - an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia, and who had a Kenyan father - did not have "sentimental reflexes" towards the UK. Uh... OK. But perhaps what is more surprising is that we have a US President with an apparently inverted perspective of what the US's natural, historic and strategic alliances should be. A cantankerous President who goes out of his way to make trouble for his country's friends whilst 'coo-ey'ing, lace hankie in hand, to the jeering mob of America's enemies.
Heather Conley and Reginald Dale from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies told a hearing: "There is clear evidence that Europe (and thus Britain) is much less important to the Obama administration than it was to previous US administrations, and the Obama administration appears to be more interested in what it can get out of the special relationship than in the relationship itself."
The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi by the Scottish executive was strongly criticised by the US and the majority in the UK: crass Labour/ScotsNaz contempt for decency
and Hillary Clinton's call for Britain to sit down with Argentina to "resolve the issues" around the Falklands was not appreciated in London.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the former ambassador to the United Nations, told the Committee that when the UK has disagreements with the United States in official business, "we play out those disagreements, we argue with the United States, in private. We tend not to argue in public unless public explanation is necessary or we are having a great row about something that cannot be kept out of the public domain," he said.
The report's authors note, however, that despite Mr Obama's personal coolness towards the UK, his policies are closer in step with UK thinking than those of his predecessor. Under the Obama administration there is a greater alignment with British policy than with the previous Bush administration -- whose approach to climate change and the "war on terror" conflicted with the view in Britain. So there's more alignment now, but the special relationship is over? The labour dominated committee still can't resist a bit of Bush-bashing, just for old times' sake.
The report notes that, according to the Foreign Office, there are few areas of contemporary foreign policy in which the UK and US co-operate as closely as in Afghanistan and Pakistan, whether in diplomatic, military or development terms. The sharing of intelligence between the US and the UK was praised by the MPs. President Obama's recalibrated strategy on Afghanistan showed "a high degree of convergence with the UK strategy presented to the House of Commons in December 2007", they said.
The report's authors called for "an honest and frank debate about the UK's role in the world based on a realistic assessment of what the UK can, and should, offer and deliver." With Obama souring old friendships and turning his back to Europe, who is going to lead the civilised world now? There's a clearly emerging vacancy on the top podium that must be being eyed by Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, (god forbid) - van Rompuy... etc.
#1
I always thought "the special relationship" referred to intelligence sharing, not policy, which may shift here and there based on the fantasies of some clueless politician.
#4
The special relationship, as far as I can tell, was supposed to be about a brotherly relationship between nations, with Britain as the elder brother advising brash young America in the use of the power it's acquired as the world's superpower.
#5
England obviously has some severe psychological problems. First and foremost, their two main political parties are increasingly the same as far as policy is concerned, and both of them are more than willing to surrender sovereignty to their overlords in Brussels.
Plus, they are now moving against third parties, to lock them out of the political process, so that England's collapse is assured.
So it seems that they could use a dose of either Fawkes or Cromwell, to put their house back in order.
#6
No, the "special relationship" refers to the special times in our history... like when they tried to destroy us around the close of the 18th century and again in the beginning of the 19th. With friends like that....you know the rest.
Posted by: Yo Adrian ||
03/28/2010 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Like it or not UK is closer to US Than Europe but Bambi does not appreciate this and wants to be closer to Africa and Asia!
#8
"First and foremost, their two main political parties are increasingly the same as far as policy is concerned, and both of them are more than willing to surrender sovereignty to their overlords in Brussels.
basically true, which is why so many people are only going to vote Tory through gritted teeth. In the last European elections UKIP came second after the Tories - a result which demonstrates clearly how sick the British voters are of the Brussels steamroller. But in our system, as yours, it's usually a case of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. Obama would happily surrender authority to the UN: does that mean the US has "severe psychological problems"?
...like when they tried to destroy us around the close of the 18th century and again in the beginning of the 19th. With friends like that....you know the rest.
Wow. Yo! Your knowledge of history, American values is almost as impressive as your POTUS's. Who are the US's natural allies if not the likes of the UK and Israel?
#9
It may turn out to be the Asian Century, but that still wouldn't mean that the West should allow itself to dissolve in bickering and old-couple spats. We have far more in common with not just the Brits but with every west European nation than we will ever have with India or China.
To take one not-so-trivial example, the ideas at the heart of our Constitution came from Locke and Montesquieu. For all the pi$$fests between us and the euros, the differences between our and their concepts of individual-state relations are trivial when you consider lovely Asian traditions such as India's caste system, or China's female infanticide tradition, or a pattern of government corruption that's the norm, not an outlier, in every aspect of governance in those nations.
God save us from a century dominated by "asian values." We and the Euros, and especially the Brits, and the Israelis and Aussies, need each other far more than we can imagine.
#11
THe great irony here is that, at the same time that Barry is dragging this nation leftward and sharply increasing the government's share of GDP-- federal gov't share's going up from 20% to 28% soon-- Sarkozy and other continental European leaders have been REDUCING the tax burden and DECREASING their govts' share of GDP. Likewise, the European populations, especially in northern Europe, are becoming more and more opposed to islamism and multi-culti idiocies.
We and they should cease with the grand transatlantic pi$$match and start exploring ways to bind ourselves more, not less, closely together. Starting with a transatlantic free trade agreement. Imagine how much wealthier and more secure we would be if we were to join forces against the Chinese.
#12
An Afrocentric Obama will NEVER embrace western or north European values or culture. Western culture, Christianity, and it's heritate are an anathema to Obama. Separatist, self governing urban communities have been a reality for years and represent a strong political voting base for Obama and the left. Obama's campaign of "social justice" will, through edict and taxation, sweep the rest of the country under his control. This is about Obama Nationalism and power, nothing less.
#13
Sadly, Besoeker, you're right. Barry's view of the world is essentially that of your average lefty junior college literature prof. The man clearly views the western nations as colonialist usurpers who need to be brought down with insults and stunts like returning the Churchill bust, sending Brown a gift of puerile DVDs, spitting on the Israelis, going out of his way to humiliate the Poles and Czechs (WTF did the Poles ever do to Barry's relatives?), siding with Argentine tinpot thugs vs the UK, etc....
It's really nothing more than Galloway-ism. The enemy of my granddad's enemies-- white imperialists-- is my friend. And every white nation that does not actively oppose or seek to thwart the US is, in Barry's twisted view of the world, an imperialist nation.
For him, this is payback time. What an absurd and foolish little man.
The current president is not Afro-centric, Besoeker. He is, as lex points out, vaguely for little brown people everywhere, but actually against everything the West stands for, so long as he can do it from the comfort of a Western standard of living. He's a classic reactionary Parlour Pink, essentially unchanged since the 1890s. George Bernard Shaw would not have written him into his plays, as -- barring the achievement of power to do the things he and his little friends have been pontificating about for generations -- he is entirely unoriginal and uninteresting.
Posted by: trailing wife on the other computer ||
03/28/2010 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#18
The current president is not Afro-centric, Besoeker. trailing wife on the other computer
Forgive me TW, but just a couple of points, there are countless others....but just how do explain over twenty years of listening to Wright spew his white hate and Black Liberation Theology every Sunday, a spouse that has only recently been proud to be an American, a total indifference to Israel, and daily mentoring from members of the Black Congressional Caucus?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/28/2010 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#21
The Brits preferred Obama 4:1 over McCain and did many things, some underhanded, to influence the American voters. So excuse me if I don't feel much sympathy for hurt egos?
Over 400,000 Americans have died fighting Britain's war in the past 100 years. That's around 1 million today taking into account the larger population. How may British died fighting in America's wars? Around 2500? The largest in Korea. That's the only unequal relationship that matters.
Posted by: ed ||
03/28/2010 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#22
but just how do explain
Besoeker, President Obama does not care about his African cousins, he needs to be seen caring about Africa. The only people he actually cares about, besides himself and his womenfolk, are the transnational UN types whose good opinion he craves, and he doesn't actually care about them, only about getting (not earning) their good opinion. He only joined that church to get the votes, as so many other things he has done in his life, and he likely only paid enough attention to the sermons to be able to spout the cant as needed. He didn't need to be taught that, he'd learnt the lessons of hatred long since at the knees of his mother and grandparents. In my opinion.
#24
I'm looking forward to the day when the British ambassador says "You know, we have a lovely bust of old Winnie that would be perfect for that corner over there" and President Palin says "We'd love have it, you betcha!".
#26
Glenmore, Roosevelt was not only shipping arms and ammunition to Britain but was trying to goad Germany into war since 1940. The US Navy was in an undeclared war with the Germans months before Pearl Harbor in violation of US law. There were no US interests at under threat. It was to keep alive a sometime US ally - Britain. W/o the undeclared war against the German navy already under way, there was no reason for Hitler to declare war against the US after Pearl Harbor. Even then, the Germans could do little to the United States. With a slightly different policy, the US could have avoided the European war, and the 300,000 American dead, altogether.
Whether you agree w/ my assessment or not, don't you find it the height of arrogance of the British Left to declare the "special relationship" is over because of 500 British deaths while the US intervention saved British asses twice and the Left's object of throbbing desire, the Soviets, once?
Posted by: ed ||
03/28/2010 20:57 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Joe, 6000 years ago the Turks weren't living in the Mediterranean; they were living in Siberia north of the Altai mountains.
#28
ed, I don't really agree with your assessment - I don't think FDR should have HAD to do an end-around to fight Hitler. Of course, if Chamberlain et al had faced Hitler down in the first place, a lot could have been avoided. Or maybe Stalin would have conquered all Europe and not lost millions of soldiers in the process. I dunno.
I do agree with your second paragraph.
SEOUL, March 28 (Yonhap) -- Military divers were to try again Sunday to reach a sunken ship as hopes were diminishing that there may be more survivors from one of the country's worst naval disasters in history.
The 1,200-ton South Korean Navy corvette Cheonan carrying 104 crew went down late Friday near the Yellow Sea border with North Korea after an unexplained explosion that officials and witnesses said split the vessel in half. Fifty-eight of them, including the ship's captain, were pulled out alive, and 46 are still missing. A North Korean attack was initially suspected, but officials now say that is unlikely.
An 86-member ship salvage unit from the Navy was continuing to search the waters Sunday for the sailors still unaccounted for and who are believed to have sunk with the boat, but strong wind and rough waves continued to dim hopes of a successful rescue.
"We are hoping to be able to go underwater today," a military official said, a day after the divers failed to reach the sunken vessel that is protruding from the shallow waters about 24 meters deep. Officials said waves carried the ship down about four miles from where it originally sank.
Seoul's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said an explosion appears to have torn a hole in the rear of the vessel, shutting off the engine and taking the ship down in less than three hours. Officials remain cautious about the cause, however, until specialists are able to reach and investigate the craft.
After visiting the disaster site Saturday, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young told the press that the government is "yet to track down the exact cause behind the tragedy."
"The vessel appeared to have been split into half," he said. "But making predictions is meaningless in this situation, I believe. Please bear with us."
The Seoul government is refraining from any comments suggesting Pyongyang's involvement in the incident. Military officials are narrowing down the possibilities to the vessel's collision with a rock, a torpedo attack from outside forces, including North Korea, or an internal explosion due to the gunpowder and explosives the ship was carrying.
The Navy plans to salvage the sunken vessel for investigation to determine what caused the incident, a long process that may take at least 20 days, officials said.
The sunken vessel, 88 meters long and 10m wide, was put into service in 1989 and was equipped with missiles and torpedoes, according to Navy officials.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Collision with a rock? Gunpowder explosion? Who comes up with these howlers?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/28/2010 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Or one of the powder monkeys could have tripped on the orlop deck, splitting a powder bag and someone dropped a burning fuse or taper into the spill and it somehow burned back to the powder magazine....or wait, that's the late 18th century Korean Navy....when did this happen?
Oh Friday, well that sort of leaves a NORK torpedo doesn't it.
Seoul - Survivors of one of South Korea's worst naval disasters speculated Saturday on what caused their warship to sink Friday night during a briefing session organized by the Navy as rescue work and investigation into the calamity continued, the local Korea Herald newspaper reported.
'The ship was broken into two parts and the rear of the ship abruptly sank. I tried my best to rescue my soldiers,' said the ship's commander, Choi Won Il, who expressed regret that he could not save more. Choi avoided pinpointing the exact cause of the explosion that tore a hole into the rear hull of the ship before the investigation is complete, but said it could have been due to 'internal or external shocks,' the Korea Herald reported.
Another sailor, however, had differing theories. 'There is no possibility whatsoever that the ship sank due to an internal explosion or a collision with a reef. I guarantee that,' said a navy lieutenant, as quoted by those who attended the Navy briefing, the Korea Herald reported.
The session for some 300 relatives of the 46 missing crew was organized by the Navy's Second Fleet Command in the ship's home port of Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province.
Choi reportedly called in news of the explosion with his mobile phone due to power failure just before the ship's demise, according to Lee Gi Sik, chief of the Defence Ministry's intelligence operations, during an emergency session of the National Assembly's defence committee. 'I went up to the deck and couldn't see the stern of the ship there. It all happened within two minutes,' the commander was quoted as saying by Reprepsentative Kim Hak-song.
The navy, coast guard and air force were all enlisted in rescue operations in waters about 1.8 kilometres south-west of South Korea's Baengnyeong Island.
Called the Cheonan, the ship was carrying 104 crew members on patrol. It began taking on water after an explosion around 9 pm (1200 GMT) Friday near the island of Baengnyeong off the west coast of South Korea, the presidential office said. About 46 crew members remain missing as rough seas and inclement weather thwarted rescue efforts for the 1,200-ton South Korean Navy corvette near the maritime border with North Korea in the Yellow Sea, military officials said Saturday. Of the 58 rescued, 13 were injured and hospitalized, with no death count given yet, officials said.
'The investigation hasn't been easy due to strong currents ... The divers only have about 40 minutes in the water at a time,' Defence Minister Kim Tae Young told reporters.
The Northern Limit Line, the western maritime border that North Korea refuses to recognize, was the site of bloody naval skirmishes in 1999, 2002 and 2009.
An NCO in the engine room suddenly found himself seeing everything two meters aft of his position simply gone. The aft third of the Cheosan broke off and sank within three minutes. The captain of the Cheosan had to use his cellphone to contact his headquarters as all power on the ship was gone. Then the remaining two-thirds of the ship developed a list and capsized.
#4
Looking at some analysis, this is almost surely a deliberate belligerent act (of war?) from North Korea:
1. It was a single blast, not a chain of blasts;
2. The blast was external, not internal;
3. The shock of blast was such that it lifted the whole ship by a foot then dropped;
4. The ship broke into two sections upon blast and the rear section sank in 3 minutes. This is the reason for high casualty rate, as the rear section housed sleeping/resting quarters;
5. The reason survivors jumped into water was because they believed that the front section too would go down within minutes;
At this point, torpedo or mine attack is the suspected cause, with the mine being the most likely cause.
#5
We're nearing the 48 hour limit, and Occam's razor offers several new aspects.
1 - Anyone hear a peep from NKor? Silence could mean nothing, could mean confusion (they're still checking their mine charts), or could mean they await a response.
2 - The ROK statements seem to clearly be both - considered, not rash, and very open-ended. They, too, seem to be deciding what's next - as in very open to the chances that this was not an accident, and certainly not self-inflicted.
3 - Per the original discussions, and links, it appears increasingly unlikely it was internal. Most of the sinkings were of ships at anchor - the Maine, the various cordite distasters during WWI, etc.. This ship was apparently on patrol under power. Also, not much discussion of the possible chain reaction needed to create an onboard explosion - and note the comments about a single large blast rather than a magazine cooking off.
As of today, I suggest Occam's law wants to know why is a mine not the most likely cause?
#6
From my pitiful knowledge of naval warfare, a modern torpedo is designed to explode under the hull, breaking the keel. This is consistent with OldSpooks's point #4.
According to the interwebs, this ship class is equipped with hull-mounted sonar. If they were listening (seems foolish not to), they would hear a torpedo. But I wouldn't expect that info to be public.
#7
'There is no possibility whatsoever that the ship sank due to an internal explosion or a collision with a reef. I guarantee that,'
OK, I'll buy the "no reef" thingy. But what about an act of sabotage? If so, who?
I'll bet it's a mine because it broke the ship clean in two.
Seeing as this is a South Korean ship, wouldn't it be able to hear an approaching torpedo? Would the sound of its screws make it impossible to detect?
If it's a NKor mine, there ought to be more of them. I'd be looking for more.
It could be another country looking to start a fight to draw attention away from them, too. If this is the case, I'd be looking for the more sophisticated kind that rise to intercept the target upon detecting its approach.
#9
Some mines nowadays are really tubes with torpedoes inside. That's a possibility, too.
I would say "mine" of whatever type caused this with 90% certainty. The question is -- new mine or old mine. The report of the corvette firing earlier in the night is interesting. Perhaps the Norks sought to lure the South Korean vessel over a newly laid mine.
#11
Certainly possible tu3031, but why? Perhaps training, I suppose, but I doubt the ROK is minelaying in this spot. On land, certainly, but too much risk at sea, not to mention it's an act of war - not that that has stopped the NKs.
Too many other bad possibilities - other navies, merchant shipping, so on, and not enough value.
Still, no witnesses to the original attack, if that's what it was, so that should rule out airborne acts - naval gunfire, missiles, aircraft.
Sounds like it's down to NK mine/torpedo, ROK accident, or the truly bizarre (how long are mines active - i.e. 60-80 year old Japanese/Chinese leftover?).
I recall the British remain vigilant of a munitions ship wreck sunk in the Thames estuary circa 1944-45?
#13
Mine. Could be one broken loose form the Nork side that drifted down there. News reports do indicate strong currents in the area. And the Norks are not exactly know for a high degree of expertise or motivation when it comes to maintenance.
#14
FYI, if its a WW2 era mine, then its a US one. We extensively mined chunks of the Korean and Chinese coastline as well as the Japanese "inner waters".
#17
As for the hull-mounted sonar dome, there are two types of sonar: active and passive. The active sonar sends out bursts of noise (think PING). By listening for the return echo, you can tell if a submarine is out there, which direction it is headed, about how fast it is going. The problem with active sonar is that it gives your position away to anyone listening. Not as big a problem with surface ships, since they are relatively noisy anyway. A submarine is very quiet and rarely uses active sonar. I don't know if active sonar would pick up an approaching torpedo in time.
With passive sonar, you just listen for noise in the water. A trained sonar operator should be able to tell the difference between a submarine, a whale (biological noise is a big problem), a torpedo, and so on.
I have no idea if the SKors were listening, or if the sonarmen were trained well or not.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
03/28/2010 20:47 Comments ||
Top||
In a Jerusalem Post article about something else, this bit:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received some badly needed support on Friday from 327 congressmen, who signed a letter expressing concern that "the highly publicized tensions" in US-Israeli ties will "not advance the interests" of either state.
In Washington, 337 congressmen -- three-quarters of the House of Representatives -- signed a bipartisan letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing solid support for Israel and the expectation that differences between Jerusalem and Washington will be smoothed over quickly and in private.
"We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension," the letter read. "A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East.
"We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the US and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability."
The letter stated that the US's unswerving commitment to Israel's security has been essential in forging previous Israeli-Arab peace agreements, "both because it convinced those who sought Israel's destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace."
The letter, signed by both House Majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), said the Israeli-US relationship needed "constant reinforcement," and quoted Vice President Joe Biden's comment while in Israel recently that "progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the US and Israel when it comes to security, none. No space."
"We recognize that despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and Israel there will be differences over issues both large and small," the letter continued. "Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies. We hope and expect that, with mutual effort and good faith, the United States and Israel will move beyond this disruption quickly, to the lasting benefit of both nations."
The American Israel Political Affairs Committee issued a statement applauding "this enormous outpouring of support" and expressing appreciation to Hoyer, Cantor, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-California), Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), Mideast subcommittee Chairman Gary Ackerman (D-New York) and Ranking Member Dan Burton (R-Indiana) "for their leadership on this letter and for the unprecedented speed with which the effort took place."
It took just three days, the AIPAC statement said, to get the 327 signatures.
Did they not try in the Senate, or will that be next?
#3
Pass a resolution and add it to a bill. See if Zero signs it...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/28/2010 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Pass a resolution and add it to a bill. See if Zero signs it...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/28/2010 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Unfortunate it is that "three-quarters of Congress" couldn't sign a letter to Barry concerning the wishes of the American people with regard to Obamacare.
#6
I wonder if they think Nobama relly cares what they think?
Posted by: chris ||
03/28/2010 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received some badly needed support on Friday from 327 congressmen, who signed a letter expressing concern that "the highly publicized tensions" in US-Israeli ties will "not advance the interests" of either state.
Obama's got a problem. He either has to rely on Congress for support, or the public. Looks like in this case, he'll have to rely on himself.
#8
It is just a letter from members of congress that recently sold out the American people in a power grab health care bill. It is just a fluff letter from people who have no self respect nor set of values. I hate to say it, but that is how I see it.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/28/2010 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
[Quqnoos] Pakistani Foreign Minister said his country was in favour of the reconciliation process, but said this has to be an Afghan-led process.
"There was a time when there was a Taliban government in Afghanistan and Pakistan felt comfortable with that. But today, we do not want the Taliban to take over Afghanistan," Shah Mahmud Qurashi told a US media in Washington.
Many analysts believe Pakistan was a key supporter of the Taliban regime until it was ousted in 2001.
"What we have said is the process (of reconciliation) should be Afghan led and Afghan owned."
Pakistani security forces have arrested a number of senior Taliban leaders over the past two months in different places in Pakistan. The detained officials include Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Taliban's No 2, who was captured in Karachi in February.
Kabul government has frequently lashed out at Pakistan for providing sanctuary for Afghan Taliban operatives in its soil, a claim dismissed by Islamabad.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
[Dawn] The parliamentary committee on constitutional reforms rejected on Friday a proposal by Pakistan Muslim League-N chief Nawaz Sharif for Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to discuss with the chief justice of Pakistan proposed amendment to the Constitution pertaining to appointment of superior court judges.
The 26-member panel recognised the renaming of the NWFP as the only matter pending for incorporation into the draft of the 18th amendment and put off its deliberations till Wednesday after the PML-N sought more time to settle the issue with the Awami National Party.
According to sources, the committee decided to take an initiative in this regard if the two parties failed to resolve the issue.
The chairman of the committee, Mian Raza Rabbani, expressed his determination to protect the constitutional reforms proposed by representatives of the people.
Haji Mohammad Adeel of the ANP likened PML-N's U-turn to a drone attack on the committee.
A majority of members were of the view that although the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution, the lawmaking and amending the Constitution were the prerogative of parliament. They said involvement of the judiciary or any of its members in the process would be tantamount to breach of parliament's privilege.
Deviating from their earlier stand, PML-N's representatives proposed in a note of dissent that the chief justice should appoint a retired judge of the Supreme Court as a member of the judicial commission. The committee had earlier agreed that the commission would appoint a retired judge of apex court as its seventh member and proposed an amendment to Article 177 of the Constitution for the purpose.
The PML-N chief appeared isolated and even representatives of his party did not challenge the criticism of his sudden change of mind which had disrupted the planned signing of the constitutional document and presentation of the 18th amendment bill in parliament.
Only Sardar Mehtab Ahmad Khan Abbasi complained about some harsh statements made by ANP leaders, including Haji Adeel.
Members from Balochistan and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement expressed resentment over the committee's failure to propose maximum autonomy for the provinces in accordance with their demands.
According to the sources, Mr Rabbani talked to the prime minister about Mr Sharif's proposal and found him non-committal and was told that he would follow the decision of the committee on the matter.
They quoted the prime minister as saying there was a possibility that the committee might reject a proposal emerging after his proposed meeting with the chief justice.
A brief statement issued by the committee after its 75th meeting said: "The PCCR met today and reinforced its resolve to present its report before both the houses of parliament along with a consensus constitutional (18th amendment) bill. The committee vowed to settle the question of the name of the NWFP through mutual consultation. The committee recalled that in such complex, constitutional and legal matters differences do emerge which are resolved through mutual consultation which is a part of the democratic process. The committee resolved to protect the consensus it has developed, which is a national trust. The next meeting of the committee will be held on March 31."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik says the US drone attacks in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan are carried out without the consent of Islamabad.
Speaking to reporters outside the Lahore High Court non Friday, Malik said the controversial issue of US drone attacks was to be raised with Washington during bilateral talks.
The remarks come as Washington claims the raids target militants in Pakistan. However, hundreds of civilians have fallen victim to such US drone attacks since 2008.
Islamabad has repeatedly condemned the strikes, saying that they infringe the country's sovereignty and fuel public anger.
Earlier on Thursday, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who was in Washington for high-level talks, criticized US forces for launching drone attacks on Pakistani soil.
"The issue of sovereignty is there. People of Pakistan feel strongly about it," Qureshi told CNN.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Libya lifted a visa ban on citizens of 25 European countries on Saturday after EU president Spain said a Swiss-instigated visa blacklist against 188 Libyans in those countries had been scrapped. The end to the visa ban and the Schengen zone blacklist will likely defuse a crisis that has threatened to damage growing business ties between Europe and oil exporter Libya.
"In the interests of strengthening its cooperation with the European Union, Libya lifts the restrictions it earlier imposed on the citizens of the Schengen zone," Libya's Foreign Ministry said in a communique carried by JANA, the state news agency.
Spain's foreign ministry had earlier issued a statement announcing the visa blacklist had been torn up and expressed regret as part of a diplomatic drive by EU leaders.
"Libya expresses its appreciation at the European Union for this move," JANA quoted the Foreign Ministry statement as saying. "This is a defeat for Switzerland by means of collective European action. Libya accepts the EU decision..."
Libya stopped issuing visas to citizens from the Schengen borderless travel zone in retaliation for Switzerland, a Schengen member, barring entry to 188 Libyan citizens including the country's leader Muammar Gaddafi and members of his family.
The Spanish statement was issued after Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos arrived for talks in the Libyan town of Sirte, where Gaddafi is this weekend hosting a summit of the Arab League.
"All the names of the Libyan citizens included in the list of the Schengen information system have been removed," the ministry said in a statement which it said came from Spain's EU presidency. "We regret and deplore the trouble and inconvenience caused to those Libyan citizens. We hope that this move will not be repeated in the future."
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi -- whose country has some of Europe's closest business ties to Libya and who has criticized the Swiss visa blacklist -- was also in Sirte on Saturday as Gaddafi's guest.
Switzerland has been locked in a diplomatic dispute with oil exporter Libya since July 2008, when police in Geneva arrested Hannibal Gaddafi, a son of the Libyan leader, on charges of mistreating two domestic employees. The charges were swiftly dropped and Hannibal Gaddafi was released, but Libya stopped oil exports to Switzerland and withdrew millions of dollars from Swiss banks.
The Swiss government is pushing for the release from prison of Max Goeldi, a Swiss businessman who was barred from leaving Libya soon after Hannibal Gaddafi's arrest. He is serving a four-month sentence for breaking immigration rules. Libyan officials deny any connection between Goeldi's prosecution and Hannibal Gaddafi's arrest.
A senior Libyan official, who did not want to be identified, told Reuters on Friday that Goeldi would be freed "very soon." Goeldi's lawyer said if his client was to be released early it would happen after the summit ends on Sunday.
Ay Pee notes that election winner Alawi is leading a secular, anti-Iran coalition although a Shiite himself, a change from his predecessor's inclinations.
The leader of the secular alliance that narrowly won Iraq's parliamentary election has offered to work with all parties to form a coalition government. Iyad Allawi said his Iraqiya bloc would start by talking with the rival State of Law alliance of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, which it beat by two seats.
Mr Maliki has refused to accept the result and said he would challenge the count through the courts.
Both the UN and US envoys to Iraq have said the 7 March poll was credible. There is concern that a challenge to the result could be lengthy and divisive, endangering progress towards greater stability.
According to final results published by Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC), Mr Allawi's secular Iraqiya bloc won 91 of the Council of Representative's 325 seats, 72 short of a majority. Mr Maliki's State of Law came second with 89 seats, followed by the Iraqi National Alliance (INA) on 70, and the Kurdistan Alliance with 43.
Iraqiya's narrow victory means Mr Allawi, a Shia, will be given the first opportunity to form a coalition government. If he fails to do so within 30 days, Iraq's president will ask the leader of another bloc.
On Saturday, the former prime minister said he had already appointed Deputy Prime Minister Rafi al-Issawi, a Sunni member of his alliance, to begin negotiations with other parties in the hope of forming a government "as quickly as possible".
"The Iraqi people have blessed the Iraqiya bloc by choosing it," he told a news conference. "We are open to all powers starting with the State of Law bloc of brother Prime Minister Nouri Maliki."
"Iraq does not belong to anyone or any party, but it belongs to all Iraqis," he added.
Mr Allawi said he was "working for a government that can make decisions and return Iraq back to its place in the Arab and Islamic world".
Magdi Abdelhadi, BBC Arab affairs analyst Iyad Allawi has clearly surprised many with such a forceful comeback. Iraqiya did not win by a big margin, but given the complex and fragmented nature of Iraqi politics, its small victory is still a considerable achievement - if it is not overturned by the courts as his rivals want. Much will now depend on how he navigates through many of the domestic and regional minefields ahead. The words he spoke struck all the right notes - inclusive and conciliatory towards his enemies both at home and abroad.
Knowing that his comeback will not be welcome in Iran, Mr Allawi must have had them in mind when he said stability in the Middle East was the responsibility of all its peoples, and not just the Americans. The US cannot stay here for ever to protect us, he warned.
If the transfer of power is completed peacefully, and Mr Allawi manages to reconcile the many competing interests, then some will conclude that Iraq's fledgling democracy appears to be coming of age.
Mr Maliki is reportedly also negotiating a merger with the INA, which includes followers of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, so he can claim to lead the biggest bloc in parliament. The groups had been part of the governing United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) before the election, but split acrimoniously.
Iraq's Supreme Court issued an opinion of Thursday specifying that a clause in the constitution referring to the "largest Council of Representatives bloc" could include an alliance formed after an election. The opinion, published in response to a query submitted by Mr Maliki, might allow State of Law and the INA to claim the right to form a government first. Together, they would hold 159 seats, four short of a majority.
Election officials have refused calls for a recount, and international observers have described the election as fair and credible.
"It is the UN's considered opinion that these elections have been credible and we congratulate the people of Iraq with this success," the top UN official in Iraq, Ad Melkert, told reporters on Friday.
The sentiment was echoed by US Ambassador Christopher Hill and the top US commander, Gen Ray Odierno, who praised the "historic electoral process" and said they backed the conclusions of observers that there had been no evidence of widespread or serious fraud.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/28/2010 00:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
[Iran Press TV Latest] Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki"s coalition is set to ask a court to order a manual recount of ballots cast in the March 7 polls, citing reports of fraud in two major cities.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Iraq's outgoing Parliament Speaker Iyad al-Samarraie has met with the deputy prime minister, Rafie al-Issawi, to discuss possible coalitions and the crisis resulting from recent statements by election winners.
The officials have discussed the recent developments on the political scene and coalition maps, according to a statement released by Samarraie's Iraqi Accord Front (IAF) and received by Aswat al-Iraq news agency. The meeting has also tackled means of getting out of the current crisis', which resulted from statements by winning political blocs, according to the statement.
On Friday (March 26), the head of al-Iraqiya List, which won Iraq's parliamentary elections with 91 seats, told al-Sharqiya TV that his list had assigned its candidate, Deputy Premier Rafie al-Issawi, to hold talks with the winning blocs in order to form a new government.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The Arab League chief cautions that the so-called Middle East peace process may be "a complete failure", calling on Arab states to seek other alternatives. Surrender?
Amr Moussa's warning came on the first day of the Arab League Summit in the Libyan town of Sirte. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, however, told the summit of Arab leaders that there would be no alternative to indirect "proximity" talks on a two-state solution.
The two-day summit is being held amid Israeli plans to build new settlements in annexed Arab East Jerusalem al-Quds in defiance of international condemnations.
"We have to study the possibility that the peace process will be a complete failure," Moussa declared to the summit. "It's time to face Israel. We have to have alternative plans because the situation has reached a turning-point," he said.
The Palestinians pulled out of the 'peace' talks after Tel Aviv announced plans to build 1,600 more settlement units in East al-Quds, which was occupied by Israel in 1967 -- a move considered illegal under the international law.
The 22-member Arab League plans to appeal to the International Court of Justice for an end to Israel's settlement expansion plan.
The UN chief on Saturday urged Arab leaders in Libya to support indirect Israeli-Palestinian talks.
"My message to you is that, whatever our concerns, there is no alternative to negotiations for a two-state solution," Ban claimed in an address at the opening session of the summit. "I urge you to support efforts to start proximity talks and direct negotiations. Our common goal should be to resolve all final status issues within 24 months," he added.
Ban further reiterated that "settlement activity is illegal and must stop."
His remarks come a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tel Aviv's policy on East al-Quds would not change.
Observers point out that Ban's emphasis on continued talks with the Tel Aviv regime despite its defiance of the international community and even its own commitments is contradictory and a double standard. They add if the Israeli regime can defy the international community while the Palestinians are always demanded to make concessions, even on their basic rights, what sense does it make for the rest of the world to respect any UN decision?
Posted by: Fred ||
03/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Arab expansion following the invention of Islam is an historical mistake. One that needs to be corrected asap.
#2
The Palestinians pulled out of the 'peace' talks
Seems silly to speak of 'peace talks' when one side is still determined to destroy the other. Wars end when either both sides have had enough (Iran vs Iraq, 1980s) or one side has the crap beat out of them (US vs Japan, WWII). Paleos vs Israelis is nowhere near either of those two endpoints.
#3
We have been trying to "force" peace in the mideast for 40+ years and achieved little. After awhile it appears the U.S. is meddling in other's sovereignty. There are other long-standing conflicts in the world where we don't do anything. Why the mideast?
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.
The United Arab Emirates navy is thought to have opened fire on a small patrol vessel from Saudi Arabia after a dispute over water boundaries.
SEOUL, March 28 (Yonhap) -- Military divers were to try again Sunday to reach a sunken ship as hopes were diminishing that there may be more survivors from one of the country's worst naval disasters in history. 
Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik says the US drone attacks in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan are carried out without the consent of Islamabad. 
Libya lifted a visa ban on citizens of 25 European countries on Saturday after EU president Spain said a Swiss-instigated visa blacklist against 188 Libyans in those countries had been scrapped. The end to the visa ban and the Schengen zone blacklist will likely defuse a crisis that has threatened to damage growing business ties between Europe and oil exporter Libya.
The leader of the secular alliance that narrowly won Iraq's parliamentary election has offered to work with all parties to form a coalition government. Iyad Allawi said his Iraqiya bloc would start by talking with the rival State of Law alliance of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, which it beat by two seats.
The Arab League chief cautions that the so-called Middle East peace process may be "a complete failure", calling on Arab states to seek other alternatives. 
