MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reasonsolar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Mans influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.
So the Sun and Earth are more powerful than humans. Liberals never get this.
#4
This man - Oleg Sorokhtin - is a heretic to the religion of man made global warming. He must be brought before the Grand Climate Inquisition Council, questioned, and, if he does not repent, be tortured, and possibly executed. He makes too much sense.
#7
"So the Sun and Earth are more powerful than humans. Liberals never get this."
That's because liberals are narcissists. They think they can do anything and are the cause of everything.
Greenhouse gases have much less impact that most realize because convection will carry heat up past most of the gases in the atmosphere and because CO2 is such a minor greenhouse gas, causing less than 1/50th of the total greenhouse effect (water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere) so doubling CO2 would probably have a negligible impact on greenhouse warming.
#8
Well, yeah, cp - but there's no money for the Lefties in that.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/03/2008 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Leave it to the RUSSIANS and RIAN > so besides this, RIAN's earlier artikle warning about COMET APOPHIS striking the Earth, and then RIAN again warning that WD5 may not significantly damage MARS iff it did hit same on Jan 30, 2008.
*OTOH, TOPIX > in Cylon Babe Yarn = Year 2048, an asteroid larger than WD5 NOT APOPHIS has better odds of de facto hitting Terra Firma; + RUMORMILLNEWS > Poster reports alleging never-before-seen space rocks/objects emanting from the SUN during recent sunspots.
GOES TO SHOW THAT EVEN RUSS = RIAN.RU's SCIENCE DESK CAN MISS A FEW.
Song(s) lyric > ON A CLOUDY DAY ...ON A WARM SUMMER'S EVE. GUAM - on a future day one can barely see the outlines of Mt. Lamlam or Santa Rosa due to super-Xtreme COLD FOG. D *** NGED LONDON BRIDGE + TOWER OF LONDON.
"IS MARS HEADED FOR EARTH" > As a WHITNEY HUSTON FAN, my old Afghan war mate OSAMA, etc. had better hope his Islamist World Messiah = Mahdi/Imam = Ahura Mazda = Krishna = ..., etc. is there to save Earth by deflecting Mars into outer space = the Sun, ala an [ISLAMIST] MAGNETO!? And remember, like the coming KAMALEN IMPACT/EVENT, 'tis only one of many.
FIFTH ELEMENT > RESPONSE/RETALIATION infers INTELLIGENCE ergo infers EXISTENCE ergo infers CONSCIENCE ergo infers LIFE ergo infers REALITY = GOD??? GOD TO SECULARISTS + ATHEISTS - Iff you be his Equal and Superior, SAVE YOURSELF AS BEST YOU CAN BECUZ BY YOUR OWN SECULAR DEFINITIONS (1) GOD + CHRIST, etc. DON'T EXIST ANDOR NEVER DID, (2) CHRIST NEVER ROSE FROM THE DEAD; and (3)NO HIGHER FORM EXISTS BEYOND MANKIND AND SCIENCE TO EITHER INDUCE SPACE EVENTS NOR STOP SPACE EVENTS, AND NEW REALITIES, ETC.
WHO SAYS THE WOT IS NOT A "WAR FOR GOD/FAITH" versus WAR AGZ GOD/FAITH???
#10
See also REDDIT > DARWINISM: THE IMPERIALISM OF BIOLOGY [by extens other/all Sciences].
ALso from REDDIT > PHYORG > HELIUM SUPPLIES ENDANGERED...Among other thingys, RUSSIA may replace the USA as the world's leading supplier in circa 30 Cylon = Amerikan years.
HMMMMM, ICE AGE? after 2041 [RIAN], new Asteroid threat to Earth in 2048, and Russia in circa 2038. AND THEN THERES PARIS = VENUS...
#13
But all we need do is spread charcoal dust on the glaciers to reduce sunlight reflectance and increase heat absorption, and the problem will simply melt away.
AoS note: please note formatting corrections. I don't have all day to do this. Posts that violate our usual posting conventions may end up deleted.
Since June 2000, Ken Livingstone has been an outstanding mayor of London. He has stood out in support of a multicultural society and has supported the Muslim communities of the city against racism and Islamophobia as well as all other minorities against all types of prejudice. Translation: Red Ken can't perceive Islamofascism.
His stands and policies have constantly championed justice in the Middle East and around the world, freedom for the Palestinians and withdrawal of occupying troops from Iraq; a rare trait of modern-day public figures. He has enhanced London's standing in the world and helped improve the lives of all of the city's communities. Another Pollyanna
For those and many more traits continuously and consistently demonstrated by the Ken Livingstone, we the undersigned believe that it is in the best interest of the Muslim communities of London, and indeed all Londoners, to back Mr Livingstone in this year's mayoral elections.
We pledge to continue our support for the mayor on all levels possible in order to secure his staying in office for a third term. Signed by: the usual suspects.
#4
You're thinking of Galloway. Red Ken's a commie.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/03/2008 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Kinda like when Al Qaeda endorsed John Frickin' Kerry.
Red Ken has imported his electorate and the rest of us are forced to live with it.
Yeah. We have politicians in this country who import their voters from south of the border. Maybe that's just what you have to do when your own citizens start getting wise to you.
#6
What does it say about the majority of the electorate in London that Livingstone is their chosen mayor? It says to me London is not a city I'd be welcome in. And that, sir, would be a badge of honor.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
01/03/2008 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
London's not so bad.
Ken was elected primarily because he annoyed Blair.
There's a few scandals to do with his taxpayers' money embezzling friends that will sink him.
#9
I've been told by denizens that Red Ken is merely a bit eccentric, and the English do love their eccentrics. That he's a truly nasty man seems to escape their notice.
Thompson is sly, wry and dry. He dares to mock and sneer at the absurd posturing and pretending that constitutes modern political campaigning which has become nothing more than spin and illusion, void of authenticity and substance. I dont know if I am ready to say hes my guy. I think its too soon to say that about anyone.
But I do note that Mr. Thompson is fast to correct the media when they blather-at-will about him; thats certainly refreshing. And I note that he and Giuliani seem to be the only folks on the GOP side who make the other side squirm, which tells me they are perceived to be the only candidates who can give them real competition. And frankly, just watching Huckabee and Romney these past weeks, Im inclined to agree - I dont think anyone else from the GOP-side can overcome the Democrats and their friendly press. Romney still strikes me as too-groomed by half, and Huckabee as too slickly cynical; both ooze something I just dont like.
So, Im going to focus on Fred and Rudy. Unless something interesting develops elsewhere, I believe I am currently intrigued most by Freeman Fred, who works to please no one and seems almost inconoclastic in his disdain for the excesses of the modern political process, and by Rudy the Ready who, as a New Yorker, I know, value and trust.
. . . I cant wait until the Iowa and New Hampshire (where everyone can vote) cartoons are over and the real races begin.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/03/2008 17:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The trophy-wife factor will kill Thompson's campaign. He doesn't have a chance.
#2
The trophy-wife factor will kill Thompson's campaign. He doesn't have a chance.
"So, in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I'm asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me and not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party, the millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democrat Party so much as their party's national leadership has left them." -- Fred Thompson
#4
Michelle Malkin and HotAir's Allahpundit have become anti-Thompson smear merchants. they republish all the Politico's smears and lies about Thompson, uncritically, then do not bother to correct them when proven wrong.
Is Michelle on drugs?
Trophy wife? I think not. Just becuase a good looking woman marries a politician does not mean she's is a bimbo.
Lets see, she's over 40, has kids with him and is a Lawyer with her JD degree and passed the bar. What are your comparable qualifications? Hmm?
McZoid you are a fripping moron if you honestly beleive that troglodyte crap that you wrote. Go away until you manage to evolve an opposable thumb.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/03/2008 19:47 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Is Michelle on drugs?
I dunno. I always respected her work until she took this slant against Thompson. Being against a candidate is fine, but don't publish every rumor/lie/hope as fact against only one or two people.
. . . So why do liberal bloggers (a.k.a. the netroots) have such a problem with this guy? After all, they are notoriously obsessed with winning, and while they have warmed to John Edwardss fire-breathing populist shtick, they acknowledge that his decision to take matching funds in the primary race would significantly limit his ability to campaign against a deep-pocketed Republican nominee like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney until September. The more viable alternative, Hillary Clinton, leaves them cold over her Iraq votes. That leaves Obama, a candidate liberal bloggers have spent much of the last week attacking. Why?
As liberal blogger Steve Benen explained on his The Carpetbagger Report Wednesday, they are angry over several recent instances in which Obama used conservative frames in very unhelpful ways (Benen himself concludes that the concerns seem overwrought). For an explanation of framing and why it has captured the liberal imagination, see this artful deconstruction:
One way to resolve this paradox (in which Republican policies are bad for most people, yet these people continue to vote for Republicans anyway) is to divide conservatives into two rough taxonomic categories: the small elite of evil geniuses who spend their days spinning sinister plots, and the masses of ignorant dupes who can be tricked into following them. Conservatives can thus be diagnosed as either evil or stupid masters of sinister language manipulation, or hypnotized victims of it.
Apparently, one of these evil conservative plots is to remind people that health-insurance mandates force people to buy health insurance. The health-care plan Barack Obama has put forward would not mandate coverage for adults whereas Hillarys would, and Obama has run some ads illustrating this distinction by pointing out that Hillarys plan would force people to buy insurance even if they cant afford it. (Benen gives this a 5 out of 5 on the "Lieberman scale" for the most "annoying" use of conservative frames.)
The statement is true. Although Hillarys plan would offer tax credits to offset some of the cost of insurance, it would force people to buy it, even if they feel they still cant afford it. Obamas statement isnt wrong because its false; its wrong because it doesnt adhere to the party line, according to which mandates dont force people to buy insurance, they provide coverage, which would otherwise be absent. (Note: Obamas plan has plenty of other coercive elements. It just lacks this one.) . . .
While the Republican partys core activists are primarily concerned with finding a viable candidate who holds an even basic set of conservative policy positions, the Democrats core activists dont have that problem. The policy differences between all the Democrats really are tiny to irrelevant, Moulitsas writes. All their candidates, in other words, seem ready to walk the walk. Theyre looking for someone who talks like they blog heavy on partisanship, conscious of framing, devoid of appeals to conservatives. In short, "nutty as a fruitcake."
But as Matt Taibbi noted last month in Rolling Stone, thats not the kind of campaign Obama ever had the option of running if he wanted to win. He certainly wont change directions now that momentum appears to be going his way.
In the days leading up to the 2004 Iowa caucuses, Howard Dean who only weeks before had been the Democratic front-runner there started slipping in statewide polls. He ended up falling all the way to third place, which is where he finished on caucus night. Theres no consensus on why Deans campaign imploded, but many chalk it up to his temper, which manifested itself in a rude exchange with a senior citizen just over a week before the vote; the subject of the argument was Deans excessive partisanship, which he vigorously defended.
One thing is for sure: The liberal blogosphere, which enthusiastically supported Deans campaign, couldnt shore up voters lack of support for Dean himself. In Iowa and especially afterward, his abrasive public persona eroded his viability. Temperamentally, he was a perfect candidate for the netroots. To more normal people, not so appealing.
By Friday morning, well know whether Obamas approach is as successful as Deans was doomed. There could be an interesting three-way conflict brewing here: the pleasantly-tempered Obama, favorite of the average Dem voter, versus the inside-baseball queen Hillary, versus the angry moonbats who write all the big checks.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/03/2008 12:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"it would force people to buy it, even if they feel they still cant afford it. Obamas statement isnt wrong because its false; its wrong because it doesnt adhere to the party line, "
Its wrong because Obama is either stupid or disingenous. If you have insurance available, that has no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, EVERYONE will buy it WHEN they get sick, but no one will buy insurance when theyre well. They'll game the system. If youre going to have insurance that has no pre-existing condition limit, esp if its subsidized, you HAVE to make it universal, IE mandatory, or youre going to hemmorage costs. When Ive put this to Obama supporters, they say that Obama WILL add mandatory coverage, just not right away, not till the costs become clearer.
The above rhetoric from Obama indicates he either doesnt understand the problem, or, more likely, he does, but he cant resist the cheap shot. So much for a "different kind of politics"
#2
One way to resolve this paradox (in which Republican policies are bad for most people, yet these people continue to vote for Republicans anyway) is to divide conservatives into two rough taxonomic categories: the small elite of evil geniuses who spend their days spinning sinister plots, and the masses of ignorant dupes who can be tricked into following them. Conservatives can thus be diagnosed as either evil or stupid masters of sinister language manipulation, or hypnotized victims of it.
#7
So, what about the independants like myself, how do I fit into his bipolar world - or do I even exist!? (holds hands up to the sky and stares longengly)
I figured it was because obama advertised on monday night football, which is as everyone knows a neo-con fascist sport because people don't just jog they run, and because like NASCAR is to a hippodrome NFL is to the colloseum.
. . . Let me describe a pre-election moment of perspective this way: Later today some people who will start their evening with Iowa's caucus by watching angry Lou Dobbs--convincing themselves, again, that they and this country are getting shafted, and coming to this conclusion while watching a $700, 32-inch Samsung flat-panel, high-definition TV with Lou's sad song flowing through Monster digital coax cables to five Onkyo HT-SR800 home theater speakers.
If the possibility of human progress strikes you as so much background noise to the higher calling of political street-fighting, turn immediately to today's installment of Mitt versus Mike. Don't get me wrong, it is great theater. The perfect last act to a year spent living out of suitcases in Iowa was the irrepressible Elizabeth Edwards's verbal poke Monday to the eye of Michelle Obama. The Democratic candidates are kind of boring compared to their spouses.
None of this is to suggest that what is at stake in the election doesn't matter, or that those deeply invested in it are misallocating life's limited days. It matters.
It is to suggest that the never-off eye of modern political media leaves the impression that nothing good is possible. If progress happens, as with the surge in Iraq or a new therapy for cancer, it must be diminished by "analysis," listing four things that could "go wrong." As a way to absorb the way the world works, this is depressing. Good things happen. Get over it. . . .
The New Year demands an admission that some good has been achieved, not by the wave of a politician's magic wand but through many daily hands at work in the nation. A reader of this column, Richard A. Fazzone of Potomac, Md., recently got these matters as well focused as I could, so with the presidential trenches waiting, he gets the final speech:
"There is no Great Depression, no WWII, no Cold War, no racism as it was in the 20th Century or before--no really big problem or solution. Unless something changes, voters want practically nothing from government, or more precisely, relatively few want the same thing, and without political consensus, a democracy does little or nothing new. In one respect, Mr. Henninger is correct to observe that 'in American politics, ambiguity is all you get,' but that may say enough. As another new year begins, we might consider ourselves fortunate for ambiguity, rather than the opposite and what would accompany it."
Posted by: Mike ||
01/03/2008 06:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
I am only going to post a couple of paragraphs from this story. The article runs fairly long and the balance can be found at the link. Another excellent analysis by George Friedman.
I was remiss not wishing everyone including Fred and the Moderators; all the Rantburgers a happy and healthy New Year. So happy New Year everyone. The endgame of the U.S.-jihadist war always had to be played out in Pakistan. There are two reasons that could account for this. The first is simple: Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda command cell are located in Pakistan. The war cannot end while the command cell functions or has a chance of regenerating. The second reason is more complicated. The United States and NATO are engaged in a war in Afghanistan. Where the Soviets lost with 300,000 troops, the Americans and NATO are fighting with less than 50,000. Any hope of defeating the Taliban, or of reaching some sort of accommodation, depends on isolating them from Pakistan. So long as the Taliban have sanctuary and logistical support from Pakistan, transferring all coalition troops in Iraq to Afghanistan would have no effect. And withdrawing from Afghanistan would return the situation to the status quo before Sept. 11. If dealing with the Taliban and destroying al Qaeda are part of any endgame, the key lies in Pakistan.
U.S. strategy in Pakistan has been to support Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and rely on him to purge and shape his countrys army to the extent possible to gain its support in attacking al Qaeda in the North, contain Islamist radicals in the rest of the country and interdict supplies and reinforcements flowing to the Taliban from Pakistan. It was always understood that this strategy was triply flawed.
First, under the best of circumstances, a completely united and motivated Pakistani armys ability to carry out this mission effectively was doubtful. And second, the Pakistani army was and is not completely united and motivated. Not only was it divided, one of its major divisions lay between Taliban supporters sympathetic to al Qaeda and a mixed bag of factions with other competing interests. Distinguishing between who was on which side in a complex and shifting constellation of relationships was just about impossible. That meant the army the United States was relying on to support the U.S. mission was, from the American viewpoint, inherently flawed.
It must be remembered that the mujahideens war against the Soviets in Afghanistan shaped the current Pakistani army. Allied with the Americans and Saudis, the Pakistani army and particularly its intelligence apparatus, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had as its mission the creation of a jihadist force in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. The United States lost interest in Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union, but the Pakistanis did not have that option. Afghanistan was right next door. An interesting thing happened at that point. Having helped forge the mujahideen and its successor, the Taliban, the Pakistani army and ISI in turn were heavily influenced by their Afghan clients values. Patron and client became allies. And this created a military force that was extremely unreliable from the U.S. viewpoint.
Third, Musharrafs intentions were inherently unpredictable. As a creature of the Pakistani army, Musharraf reflects all of the ambivalences and tensions of that institution. His primary interest was in holding on to power. To do that, he needed to avoid American military action in Pakistan while simultaneously reassuring radical Islamists he was not a mere tool of the United States. Given the complexity of his position, no one could ever be certain of where Musharraf stood. His position was entirely tactical, shifting as political necessity required. He was constantly placating the various parties, but since the process of placation for the Americans meant that he take action against the jihadists, constant ineffective action by Musharraf resulted. He took enough action to keep the Americans at bay, not enough to force his Islamist enemies to take effective action against him.
#1
He took enough action to keep the Americans at bay, not enough to force his Islamist enemies to take effective action against him.
I don't know, maybe that is what we needed until we could get a firm foothold in the middle east. You can't swallow more than you can chew.
I remember reading on rantburg, many years ago, snide comments about Perv and not understanding. It seemed that Perv was cooperating as best he could. But as I become more informed, I began to understand.
That said, there is little interest in looking backward. We need to look forward from where things stand today. It seems to me that Pakistan is still a difficult problem because, even though Perv is bad, the Islamists are worse. My mother used to use the phrase, jumping from the fat into the frying pan. We don't live in a perfect world. It's worth remembering that when we deal with the Perv The Power Whore.
#2
We need to go after the ISI. Kill them individualluy, but in large nubmers, starting with what leadership we cna get to, and continuing with the "middle management" who are supporting the Talib and other radicals and tribalists.
Suspend Executive Order 11905, Sec. 5(g), 12036, Sec. 2-305 2-309 (the Ford and Carter prohibitions on assassination), and the parts of EO 12333 2.11 and 2.12 which limiit assassination, for the territorial area of Pakistan. The President may modify or rescind the assassination ban in the E.O. by executive order. Furthermore, as provided in the language of the law, the suspension need not be published in the federal register due to triggering of the clause regarding "an attack on the continental United States..."
All we need is a president with balls enough to do it, and a CIA that has the courage to act operationally instead of cowering behind their desks in Langely and engaging in political putsches against the president and his policies.
#3
Stratfor repackages the obvious, dresses it up with Jack Bauer lingo ("command cell", right) and sells it as intelligence.
The United States lost interest in Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union, but the Pakistanis did not have that option. Afghanistan was right next door.
"(T)he Pakistanis did not have that option." I do not even know where to start with this: There is the self-important and reproachful tone and there is the cart-before-the-horse. You know what? Pakistan had the option of not trying to turn its neighbor into a proxy, the option of not attempting to subvert Kashmir, the option of not arming dark ages fanatics to act as proxies in both places, the option of entering the modern world and leaving religion to people's own conscience. Lots of options.
Heaven spare us from Stratfor analysts. May they return to the sophomore poli-sci classes where they will earn the B- grades they deserve.
#4
"You know what? Pakistan had the option of not trying to turn its neighbor into a proxy,"
Except that ran the risk of it becoming a Russian or Indian proxy.
When the Brits ruled the Indus valley they tried to maintain hegemony in Kabul. The strategic logic is very strong.
" the option of not attempting to subvert Kashmir,"
Again, given the proximity of Kashmir to Pakistans pop centers, the genuine legal complexity of the Kashmir situation, and the precarious political legitimacy of the Paki state, Im not sure that was a feasible option.
Stratfor isnt talking about the Paki states as it SHOULD have evolved from 1947, but as it WAS in 1991.
#5
OS - do they even have enough Urdu speakers, enough knowledge of the place, to really penetrate well enough to do that? (dont answer if you think its inappropriate to do so)
#6
the genuine legal complexity of the Kashmir situation
There is actually nothing legally complex about Kashmir.
According to the UK's Indian Independence Act of 1946, the Ruler of each Princely State, (who owed allegiance to the King-Emperor) had to chose either India or Pakistan. All 565 signed the Instruments of Accession.
The Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir signed the instrument of accession. This was witnessed by Lord Lois Mountbatten, cousin to the current Queen and the last Viceroy of India.
This legally made Kashmir part of the Indian Union.
Nehru further insisted on elections and the pro-Delhi party led by Sheik Abdullah won by a landslide.
It was Mountbatten who encouraged Nehru to go to the UN instead of continuing with the war until all the Pakistanis were driven out.
Thinking they had an iron-clad case (the accession was legal according to the terms of the Independence law), the Indians were rudely introduced to big power geopolitics in the UN security Council.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/03/2008 15:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You know what? Pakistan had the option of not trying to turn its neighbor into a proxy, the option of not attempting to subvert Kashmir, the option of not arming dark ages fanatics to act as proxies in both places, the option of entering the modern world and leaving religion to people's own conscience
Yes, and we can thank Pinky and her husband for much of that. I like Stratfor because they do good summaries. But I do think that there is a tendency to pretend that somewhere out there, there is a "pefect solution" if found, would magically wipe away all problems. Some situations are just very difficult to solve and thus remain problems for a very long time. Sometimes you have to accept that thee is no great solution and you have to simply accept the best available one and keep moving forward.
Yes, liberalhack. All can be blamed on America and Britians because the poor little non-white people have no control over their savage impulses.
#8
Pakistan also had the option to develop into a normal state. It choose, quite rationally, to radicalize its youth, producing the cannon fodder for jihad. It is now paying the price for that.
When you're a smaller state, like say Canada, you just have to learn to live with your more populous, richer, more powerful neighbor.
What you don't do is actively fund, train and equip insurgent groups to attack your neighbor, trying to break it up. You don't try to match your neighbor militarily with aid provided by other states. You don't attack your neighbor 4 times. You don't inculcate your youth with hatred and send them across your border to kill and maim. You don't counterfeit the currency of your neighbor. You don't send drugs across the international border as state policy. You don't neglect spending on health, education, infrastructure to fund a military machine and jihad.
Pakistan made all these choices....
Posted by: john frum ||
01/03/2008 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#9
john frum - well said. Like they say, you reap what you sow.
#12
E: "(T)he Pakistanis did not have that option." I do not even know where to start with this: There is the self-important and reproachful tone and there is the cart-before-the-horse.
I think you are reading into this what isn't actually there. Friedman is saying that Pakistan did what was good for Pakistan which was to use the Taliban to secure its rear area in Afghanistan, and the US did what was good for the US, which was to end its multi-billion grants of weaponry to the Afghans mujahideen via Pakistan - the Afghans had gotten what they wanted and the US had gotten what it wanted. Friedman isn't talking about morality - he is talking about interests.
That's a good rant, but no Republican president could get away with a Carthaginian solution unless we were hit by nukes - and maybe not even then. Would Iraq have been resolved a lot sooner if we had aped Hafez al Assad and exterminated Fallujah? Maybe. But we will never know, because it's not on our list of permissible options. And that's that.
#14
I'm not saying the solutions are practical or even remotely likely, and certainly not desirable. Going medieval doesn't have to lead to Carthage though they make the best example.
I believe that since the Geneva convention and the UN and our attempts to civilize war and stop it the weaker parties in conflicts (the Palestinians for example) have learned they can start wars and keep them simmering without the fear of being smashed as they would have in the old days. This has not helped the peace and if more nations took the gloves off their smaller neighbors would stop the nonsense and in the long run the butchers bill would be smaller.
#16
ITAR-TASS > INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM LINKED TO BENAZIR BHUTTO MURDER.
"A LEGAL BASIS HAS BEEN CREATED FOR THE WORLD" - any and all world secret services should collude and join in common efforts, with final actions to be base on state-of-the art technologies [information sharing]. READ - THE ORGANIZATION, BUREAUCRATIZATION, INSTITUTIONIZATION, and of course GOVERNMENTIZATION OF ANTI-TERROR = OWG???
#17
ASIA TIMES > DON'T COUNT YOUR VICTORIES BEFORE THEY'RE WON, + GO DIRECTLY TO JIHAD, DON'T PASS GITMO; + TOPIX > 2007: THE YEAR THE COLD WAR [truly?] ENDED.
Repeated terrorist strikes in quick succession suggest that Uttar Pradesh is fast emerging as a theatre of jihadi violence in India. What is equally ominous is the gradual spread of jihad's deadly tentacles with the police failing to take pre-emptive action as well as bring the guilty and their associates to book. Following the jihadi strike on the Group Centre of the Central Reserve Police Force at Rampur in the early hours of Tuesday, there is further confirmation that precious little is being done by both Central intelligence agencies and the State police to prevent the heartland from becoming a happy hunting ground for Islamists armed with guns, bombs and their vicious ideology of hate which justifies the cold-blooded murder of innocent people in the name of religion.
It is now clear that there is little co-ordination between the Centre and the States on sharing intelligence - New Delhi believes its job is over with passing on intelligence inputs to State Governments; State agencies claim that either the inputs are too vague or reach them too late. Whatever the truth, jihadis are enormously benefited by the mess that prevails; the price for authority's abysmal failure is paid by those who are slaughtered and maimed as well as their families. Of course, all this and more is of little interest to Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil, who is rarely seen and even less heard. He owes an explanation as to why the CRPF centre was so poorly protected although it was on the hit list of terrorists. However, it would be unfair to blame the Home Minister alone. For, it is also evident that cynical politics of pandering to crass minorityism is increasingly becoming an obstacle to fight terror; by confusing Muslim sentiments with the diabolical fervour of Islamists, enormous damage is being caused to national security by the UPA Government and the me-too-secular State Governments, especially the regime in Uttar Pradesh.
India is no longer battling a foreign monster, trained and armed by Pakistan. We are now confronted by enemies within who are no less diabolical than those from whom they draw inspiration. If we were to dispassionately look at the Mumbai commuter train bombings, the jihadi attacks in Hyderabad, the blasts at courts in Uttar Pradesh, the terror strikes in Delhi, Ayodhya, Varanasi, Bangalore and now Rampur, it would be clear to all that local terror cells are involved.
The ease with which the attacks have been carried out and the felicity with which the attackers and their co-conspirators have escaped detection demonstrate that a vast network has been set up for providing logistical support to the killers and their associates. Yet, there is no visible or declared effort to smash the network and bust the modules simply because politicians are too scared of "hurting Muslim sentiments". This is not to suggest that a crackdown will not fetch a reaction; on the contrary, there are bound to be vociferous protests, especially by the clergy, which sees nothing wrong with the bloodletting in the name of Islam, and the so-called community leaders, who slyly justify murder by citing imaginary grievances. But Government must ignore such protests or else it must prepare to face a fierce blowback. Nobody wants a lily-livered Government running scared of terrorists.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/03/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nobody wants a lily-livered Government running scared of terrorists.
You'd be surprised.
Posted by: Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero ||
01/03/2008 4:26 Comments ||
Top||
The Yemen Times speaks... By: Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy He must be their etiquette columnist...
This title may sound strange, but its actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must. So get out your pencils, moon worsippers...
First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longmans Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically. However, the term violence mustnt be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights. Ya can't just beat em because they're not equal to you or they don't have as many rights as your goats. Ya gotta kinda have a reason.
Occasionally if not daily we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence even that between a father and daughter and citing the cases of some women as examples. Geez, I wonder why that is?
Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers with no exceptions. One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husbands reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence. Woman be thinkin too much, I'll bet...
If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Quran provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also. For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husbands or the wifes family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable. Where does "acid bath" fit in on the schedule, O Wise One?
Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husbands home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce. Geez, he makes it sound so easy... Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands. I dunno? Might make pops realize he can't get away with murder maybe?
Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I dont think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it. Ah, Ye Olde "they just don't listen!" defense...
Fathers are responsible for their daughters behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake especially a moral one that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, whats the solution by such organizations? Yeah, I would doubt they have "honor killing" anywhere on their flow chart...
According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms? Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? Its really amazing to hear this. Uh-huh...really...amazing.
In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those good human rights organizations dont make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons? So mind your own business...INFIDEL!
As the proverb goes, If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful. This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy societys religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration. So keep on whaling on em, boys. The bitches will eventually figure it out. If they know what's good for them. Dear readers especially women dont think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us. I hope my message is clear, since its really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion. Just another day in Islamic paradise. Good luck, ladies...
Posted by: Abu Chuck al Ameriki ||
01/03/2008 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Dear readers especially women dont think that I hate or am against women"
If I were to think about you at all - which I don't (I'd rather spend my time on more productive pursuits, like watching oil paint dry) - I'd think you are a worthless pathetic wanking LOSER. And those are your good points.
Think there must be violence against women? This woman (and many others on Rantburg) say, "Bring it, assh*le."
Just make sure your will is made out first.
Idiot.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/03/2008 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hey Maged you miserable excuse for a male,
Meet Vanessa Dobos- and pray that she lets you live, you worm...
"...you can't win Vader..."
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
01/03/2008 18:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oh, I am *so* sorry - I didn't think it was posting after seeing the 'roadsideamerica' page. Sorry :(
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
01/03/2008 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Tony, in triplicate would have been enough. ;-)
#2
The USSR was broken by a decrease in revenue brought on by an 'agreement' with the KSA, combined with an unsustainable increase in military spending brought on by 'Star Wars' and Afghanistan.
Is this a varaiant on the theme? Make a deal with Turkmenistan to force Iran to either lose revenue or anger the populace, at the same time they are spending unsustainably on military activities in Iraq, Lebanon, and maybe Afghanistan? Realpolitik at work behind the scenes of the Bush democracy proselytization?
#3
Very interesting. Back in the 90s Turkmenistan used to cut off gas exports in the blink of an eye if a former Soviet republic customer was tardy in its payments. This mundane explanation might also be considered.
#5
To me, this means Turkmenistan is either knows something we don't know or is totally stupid considering the trend Iran has been following. Or maybe it's just business, which would suggest that Iran doesn't seem to be able to pay its gas bill. Seems to me Russia didn't trust them to fall too far into arrears a few months ago, either.
#6
Whether this is business, or part of a greater plan, it is a perfect opportunity to crank up our psyops in Iran. Increase unrest with anti-mullah tactics and starting causing more gas lines to go haywire. This could really be whipped up into a perfect storm to bring down the government.
Now if only we had the intelligence agency to do it....
Posted by: Titus Hayes ||
01/03/2008 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Expect Lebanese-Israeli border to heat up
That was always part of Iran's strategy, except now it'd be due to internal problems rather than a war.
Along with the 'Hesb'allah option', it's likely that Al Quds forces will be used to create problems for Qatar, the UAE, KSA, etc. as a means to secure internationally-sponsored 'humanitarian supplies' of natural gas.
#10
I could be wrong but wouldn't fomenting trouble on the Israeli border cost cash that Iran can't afford? I know they want to distract their people but do you really think they have the assets in place and paid for to run any kind of serious distraction without having the logistics and cash to followup?
#12
1: Iran also shut off gas to Turkey either last year or the year before due to cold domestic temperatures spiking demand to the point where all exportable surplus was burned up keeping warm. Many of the houses in Iran are not insulated like Western homes are and can burn a lot of fuel to heat.
2. Russia will be in a fantastic position in a few years time. They will be raking in a fortune in oil profits, have a MUCH smaller pensioner population to support, in the middle of a new baby boom of their own making at the same time the US government is going broke under the burden of paying pensions to 1/3 of its population.
#13
Besides US$100.0 a barrel oil prices, REDDIT > a 10,000-tonne cargo ship is about to sail using an experimental SOLAR SAIL to power her. Also on the Net - NANO SAIL TECH???
Looks like FUTURIST JAPANESE ANIME, SCI FI/CARTOON CHANNELS, + MORGAN WEBB will get their revenge after all.
#14
I could be wrong but wouldn't fomenting trouble on the Israeli border cost cash that Iran can't afford?
Yes, and no. Iran already has the assets in place. It'd cost some more, but it'd also be a distraction for the domestic population and a boon to the government (especially if Israel went after Iran). And it would have the effect of putting pressure on the US and Europe.
It's also a fairly good indicator that if Putin isn't working with (or for) the Red Mafia, then it's a fortunate 'alignment of the stars'.
#15
Comparewid TOPIX > IS DETENTE IMPENDING BETWEEN IRAN AND USA?, + STANDOFFS [Multiple] THREATEN THE ENTIRE ME REGION + DAMASCUS [Syria] MAY HAVE JUST LOST THE ARABS + ANALYSIS: WHY ISRAEL MIGHT HAVE TO STRIKE IRAN SOONER + ISRAELI ARABS REFUSE TO BE COUNTED AS GAZA/PA CITIZENS.
#16
OOOOPSIES, forgot to add from TOPIX > ASIA TIMES -A SNEEK PEEK AT A DESERT ARMAGEDDON [Iran vzIsrael/US-Iran]. Should be ARMAGEDDONS, in the plural. Also from TOPIX > THE COMING CHINA-PHILIPPINES-VIETNAM CRISIS OVER THE SPRATLEYS AND SOUTH CHINA SEA. Silly boy, ya though it twas only TAIWAN now, didn't you Moriarity!?
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.
