Ukraine's underfunded and outdated military, with Cold War-era technology and salaries to match, would be an anemic deterrent if the Russian invasion of Crimea were to widen into a bigger confrontation, according to a 2012 Ukrainian Ministry of Defense report.
Obsolete tanks and fighter planes, a miniscule navy and a dwindling army whose approximately 100,000 soldiers earn about half the nations average salary all bode poorly for the nation of 45 million what declared its independence from Russia in 1991.
It is absolutely not a combat ready force. Its sharply underfunded, and they dont have any real air or surface to air or capacity compared to what Russia can deploy even though Russia is no paragon of military readiness either, Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FoxNews.com.
There is the little matter of something called the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. When the Soviet Union cracked up, a lot of their nuclear weapons were on Ukrainian soil. This was considered untidy; so to convince the Ukrainians not to keep them a deal was cut. They gave up the nukes, and the US, UK, and Russia absolutely guaranteed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine.
#2
They gave up the nukes, and the US, UK, and Russia absolutely guaranteed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine.
I'd say that makes things a bit complicated but since Champ is likely to do little, it's not so complicated. It's not likely the U.S. is going to get embroiled in another war. There are economic sanctions suggested by some members of Congress--otherwise, it doesn't seem like Europe or the U.S. is getting their panties in a knot over the Ruskie's invasion. Champ and Kerry have had weak statements regarding the invasion. We are safest in a position of strength--that doesn't seem to be where we are going under this administration. It seems like Russia is returning to its expansionist ambitions of the Cold War.
#5
One of the interesting statements is the possibility of Polish aid to the Ukraine. Kerry is busy trying to prevent a shooting war. This is where Obama's stabbing the Poles in the back may come back to bite him.
Posted by: Florida Al ||
03/03/2014 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
[Pak Daily Times] Maulana Abdul Aziz ...nutball holy man who runs the Lal Masjid in the heart of Pakistain's capital. After instigating a rebellion against the state in 2007, he was caught trying to sneak away dressed in a burka. He rejects democracy as un-Islamic, which it probably is... represents that very vocal section of our extreme right-wing, which thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is a kafir (infidel) and an enemy of Islam. There is another vocal section even smaller in number that feels that anyone who disagrees with their krazed killer 'anti-religion-ism' is automatically an Islamist. To the former, sharia or shariat, and that too only their version, is a panacea for all ills confronting Pakistain. The other section feels that there are absolutely no redeeming features of religion and that religion, especially Islam, is in complete contravention of the principles of secularism, democracy and modernity.
Yet these two extremes have more in common than they would accept. For one thing they both have a very narrow and absolutist view of Islam as a religion, which one extreme champions and the other extreme denigrates. Both these extremes believe that Islam is inherently bigoted, misogynist, violent and anti-modern. One section celebrates this worldview while the other castigates it but both agree on the substance. Historically, they have another thing in common: both opposed the creation of this country -- the former because they felt that the leaders of the Mohammedan movement were too secular and, in any event, extracted from various different sects within Islam such as Shia, Ismaili and Ahmedi sects, which offends their bully boy Salafi brand of Islam and then there is the latter because they feel that Mohammedans did not exist as an entity and had no grievances or concerns whatsoever, economic or otherwise, and therefore the demand for Pakistain itself was communal.
Meanwhile, ...back at the palazzo, Don Smilzo looked for an avenue of escape. The only window opened a hundred feet above the moat. The nearest of the hired assassins hold a bloody axe.
The window was looking better all the time.... an ideological debate rages on in Pakistain as to whether Jinnah wanted a secular or an Islamic state. A study of his record will show that the man was no Islamist by any stretch of imagination and that he consistently wanted an inclusive and democratic state, which treated its citizens equally, a recurring theme in most of his pronouncements. When the Objectives Resolution was being debated, some members of the religious class paraded out an alleged letter that Jinnah had addressed to the Pir of Manki in the Frontier (now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa ... formerly NWFP, still Terrorism Central... ) where he is supposed to have promised sharia.
This letter, the veracity of which cannot be confirmed by the way as it does not appear in official records of Jinnah's correspondence, however does not promise sharia in the least. The operative line, which supposedly promised shariat reads as follows: "It is needless to emphasise that the Constituent Assembly, which would be predominantly Mohammedan in its composition would be able to enact laws for Mohammedans, not inconsistent with the shariat laws". In other words, he was saying that if you could convince compatriots through the ballot you could enact such laws, which may not be inconsistent with sharia and that these laws would be applicable to Mohammedans only. On the basis of this, both the aforesaid extremes claim that Jinnah promised sharia, which is just simply untrue.
Jinnah also told his audience in the Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... Bar Association that the principles of democracy, equality and fraternity of justice were not in contravention to sharia. Whether he believed this or whether he was speaking in the idiom of his people is immaterial but what is clear is that he was not speaking of the straitjacket sharia, just as his secularism was not of a straitjacket variety. As a lawyer schooled in the Common Law tradition, the founding father of Pakistain was a strong believer in harmonious construction.
The two extremes I speak of however believe in straitjackets, both in sharia and secularism. Sharia to these two extremes is what the Taliban propose: beheadings, harsh punishments, closing up of women behind closed doors and a rebellion against reason and rationality. Secularism to both these groups is a complete and total negation of religion. In doing so they are woefully ignorant of the history of secularism as it developed. The separation of church and state was not driven by the idea that religion ought to be discarded altogether. The first actual manifestation of the idea came from Roger Williams, a devout Christian theologian, who saw it essential for religious freedom. He was a puritan Christian who had profound religious disagreements with the established church in Massachusetts. Thus, contrary to what the krazed killer anti-religion-ists would have us believe, secularism itself emerged from the rejection of a religious straitjacket. The term 'secular', which originated in Europe was itself used to refer to the clergy that did not belong to a church. The father of modern secularism, John Locke, derived his ideas of modern society from his Christian belief. Kemal Ataturk, the greatest and most successful of the secularists in the Mohammedan World, tried till the very end of his life to give his people a Turkish only version of the Koran to reinforce his project of modernisation. His biographer, Andrew Mango, writes revealingly about his reforms, "As a result, a new form of Islam, illogical in theory but viable in practice -- Islam-within-secularism -- gradually developed in Turkey" (Page 535, Ataturk by Andrew Mango).
In our Pak context, secularism would mean the liberty and freedom to disagree with Maulana Abdul Aziz and the Taliban on matters of faith. It would mean the freedom to believe in whatever faith or interpretation of a faith without interference from the state. The constitution -- especially one that promises fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion -- therefore can only be an enabling and never an enforcing constitution.
Now coming to sharia and Islam, the question is whether Islam is fundamentally contrary to human rights One man's rights are another man's existential threat. and democracy. The best answer was given by Benazir Bhutto ... 11th Prime Minister of Pakistain in two non-consecutive terms from 1988 until 1990 and 1993 until 1996. She was the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, founder of the Pakistain People's Party, who was murdered at the instigation of General Ayub Khan. She was murdered in her turn by person or persons unknown while campaigning in late 2007. Suspects include, to note just a few, Baitullah Mehsud, General Pervez Musharraf, the ISI, al-Qaeda in Pakistain, and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who shows remarkably little curiosity about who done her in... when she wrote about the early Mohammedan society, "Democracy was a consensus emerging from the free expression of the will of the small community as well as the implementation of Koranic ideals that we know to be intrinsic to democratic society: tolerance, pluralism, justice, law, equality and a fair economic system" (Page 73, Reconciliation by Benazir Bhutto). This is also the essence of secularism.
Mohammedans in general and Paks in particular need to begin defining sharia as something bigger than merely harsh punishments, which have no place in the modern world and to stop conflating secularism with anti-religion-ism. The question of secular versus Islamic will become immaterial then.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/03/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Pak Daily Times] Child marriages were common in human history. Princess Emilia of Saxony, who was the daughter of Duke Henry IV of Saxony and his wife Catherine of Mecklenburg, in 1533, at the age of 16 years, married George the Pious, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, and then 48 years old. Before modern history, child marriage was common everywhere in the world but, with the advent of the 20th century, immense decline has been observed around the globe. It is noteworthy to mention that, although the ratio of child marriages is declining across the world, some countries in Africa and Asia still allow child marriages due to various reasons.
Nancy Demand of Birth, Death and Motherhood in Classical Greece fame provides that in ancient and medieval societies, girls would be betrothed at or before puberty. Nancy Demand further goes on to explain that, in ancient Greece, early wedding and motherhood for girls was encouraged. Even boys were encouraged to marry before reaching the age of competency. With an average life expectancy between 40 to 45 years, early marriages and teenage motherhood were typical. In Ancient Rome, girls married above the age of 12 and boys above 14. In the Middle Ages, under English Civil laws that were derived from Roman laws, marriage before the age of 16 was common. In Imperial China, child marriage was the norm.
At first glance, it is pertinent to first find out what is meant by child marriage in plain words. The UNICEF report of 2011 defines child marriage as a formal marriage or informal union of individuals before reaching the age of competency, which is normally 18 years. In 2013, the first United Nations ...the Oyster Bay money pit... Human Rights Council resolution against child, early and forced marriages was adopted. It recognises child marriage as a human rights ...which are often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless... violation and pledges to eliminate the practice as part of the UN's post-2015 global development agenda. Child marriage is observed in almost every country in Africa, and Asia except some. It is a reality for boys and girls both but girls are the most affected by the practice, most of whom are in poor socioeconomic situations.
As I stated above, Princess Emilia of Saxony got married at the age of 16 to Margrave of Brandenburg who was 48 years old. Here, I can place my opinion with the context of this example that in child marriages, one marriage partner, usually the girl, is less than 18-years-old due to the importance placed on female virginity. It is fair to put forward that child marriages in Africa, some parts of Asia, Latin America and Oceania are driven due to poverty, illiteracy, culture, tradition, bride price, dowry, religious and social pressure, and even the fear of remaining unmarried. In the following paragraph, I will consider the facts and figures of child marriages by region but more consideration will be given to India, Pakistain and Bangladesh. UNICEF, in 2012, revealed that child marriages were common around the world but that backward and economically unsound countries observed child marriages much more in contrast to European countries and the US. For instance, the marriageable age in Scotland is 16 and no parental consent is required. As with the US, cohabitation is observed in the UK. According to a 2005 study, 4.1 percent of all girls in the 15 to 19 age group in the UK were cohabiting (living in an informal union) while 8.9 percent of all girls in that age group admitted to having been in a cohabitation relation (child marriage per UNICEF definition), before the age of 18. Over four percent of all underage girls in the UK were teenage mothers. Now, coming back to the main purpose of this article, which is to consider child marriages in Pakistain, India, and Bangladesh, it is therefore noteworthy to mention that, according to two 2013 reports published by UNICEF, over 50 percent of all marriages in Pakistain involve girls who are less than the age of competency. Another report by UNICEF claims that 70 percent of girls in Pakistain are married off before the age of 16. The exact number of child marriages in Pakistain below the age of 13 is unknown but they are rising, according to the United Nations.
Andrew Bushell claims the rate of marriage of eight to 13-year-old girls exceeds 50 percent in the northwest regions of Pakistain. Another custom in Pakistain, called vani, involves village elders solving family disputes or settling unpaid debts by marrying off girls. The average marriage age of swara girls is between five and nine. Similarly, the custom of watta satta has been cited as a cause of child marriages in Pakistain. According to the Population Council, 35 percent of all females in Pakistain become mothers before they reach the age of 18 and 67 percent have experienced pregnancy out of which 69 percent have given birth before they reach the age of 19. Less than four percent of married girls below the age of 19 had some say in choosing her spouse, over 80 percent were married to a near or distant relative.
Child marriage rates in Bangladesh are amongst the highest in the world. Every two out of three marriages involve children. According to statistics from 2005, 45 percent of women then between 25 and 29 had been married by the age of 15 in Bangladesh. According to the State of the World's Children, 2009 report, 63 percent of all women aged 20 to 24 were married before they were 18. The ministry of women and kiddies's affairs is making progress in increasing women's education and employment opportunities. This, combined with specific education about child marriage and cooperation with religious leaders, is hoped to decrease child marriage. On the other hand, A UNICEF discussion paper determined that 79.6 percent of Moslem girls in Nepal, 69.7 percent of girls living in hilly regions irrespective of religion and 55.7 percent of girls living in other rural areas, are all married before the age of 15. Girls who were born into the highest wealth quintile marry about two years later than those from the other quintiles.
In culmination, it is submitted that child marriage is a reality and there is a need to enact laws that prohibit child marriages. This child marriage ratio is much higher in the subcontinent but even exists in Europe and the US. It is further said that child marriage is a violation of human rights in the advanced world. The constitution of Pakistain demands equality and promises no discrimination at all but child marriages happen in Pakistain every day, which shows that the social structure of Pakistain has not reached the point where it considers child marriages to be prohibited unions. I further contend that this should be stopped on an urgent basis and stakeholders must take a positive and effective part ensuring no child marriages in Pakistain.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/03/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Allow child marriages, but require sterilization of the groom first. Watch the demand "dry up..."
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/03/2014 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#1
As we all anticipate, if they allow another Trunk to occupy the White House or get control of the Senate, they'll be back mocking the 'powerful'. Donks with character assassin credentials. Sarah Palin to the courtesy phone.
#5
Nixon was just Obama with a Duke law degree, 3rd in his class BTW (wait it's public knowledge). Just Obama with a 1st Degree Blackbelt in Dipomacy, see Kitchen Debate, See Linebacker II, See China. I wish to hell right now Dick Nixon was running the show, he was a rat bastard, but he had brains. Hell he's a good analogue of Putin come to think of it.
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.
[Pak Daily Times] Child marriages were common in human history. Princess Emilia of Saxony, who was the daughter of Duke Henry IV of Saxony and his wife Catherine of Mecklenburg, in 1533, at the age of 16 years, married George the Pious, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, and then 48 years old. Before modern history, child marriage was common everywhere in the world but, with the advent of the 20th century, immense decline has been observed around the globe. It is noteworthy to mention that, although the ratio of child marriages is declining across the world, some countries in Africa and Asia still allow child marriages due to various reasons. 
Andrew Bushell claims the rate of marriage of eight to 13-year-old girls exceeds 50 percent in the northwest regions of Pakistain. Another custom in Pakistain, called vani, involves village elders solving family disputes or settling unpaid debts by marrying off girls. The average marriage age of swara girls is between five and nine. Similarly, the custom of watta satta has been cited as a cause of child marriages in Pakistain. According to the Population Council, 35 percent of all females in Pakistain become mothers before they reach the age of 18 and 67 percent have experienced pregnancy out of which 69 percent have given birth before they reach the age of 19. Less than four percent of married girls below the age of 19 had some say in choosing her spouse, over 80 percent were married to a near or distant relative. 
