#1
SK used to have some pretty darned good Special Forces operatives. Might be a good idea to send them to Afghanistan to replace the doctors and engineers. Paying big ransoms is a really bad idea (unless it is temporarily delivered by said spec ops.)
#2
I hope that somehow the mood on the Korean street is changed so that the public perception is of deep humiliation over the hostages. Humiliation that turns to dark thoughts of vengeance directed at the Taliban leaders in Quetta.
#3
Nah, the mood isn't against the Taliban, it's against the US, of course. Korea, just cave in already and pay $100 million to free the hostages, it's what you're going to do anyway. Of course, they could just ship an equivalent amount of arms to the Taliban instead, it would save everyone a lot of effort and avoid enriching the ISI.
#4
Well, I at least hope they get a discount because of the "bullet riddled" dead guy...
What the hell were these people doing over there anyways? Christian missionaires in the belly of the beast in the middle of a war? It's nice to have your beliefs but not at the cost of your common sense...or maybe your life.
#5
They're blaming Uncle Sam, as usual. I suspect the Koreans will just wire the required ransom to a numbered account, following which the hostages will be released. And the Taliban will have enough money to fight on for another 20 years. Then again, what can you expect from the Koreans?
#6
NPR interviewed a gentleman this morning who is related by marriage on his wife's side to the missionary leading the group. Apparently the missionary is returning for the third year in a row to this particular project, and this time decided to bring a group of church ladies with him. According to the gentleman, missionary work is very popular in South Korea, which is second only to the U.S. in the number of missionaries sent abroad, and the Koreans are more likely to go to out of the way corners of the world... like southern Afghanistan, where the group was going to restock a school and infirmary (or something like that) which was said missionary's pet project.
#2
Read today what historians will say tomorrow. Well written and spot on.
I kept looking for "the catch" and didn't find one. Especially thought it was coming when he said, "The Iraq War caused the Turks...." but no, just a good historical analysis of what happened.
However, I'm not completely sure I agree with the prediction: "As in the Cold War, we cannot expect every country to become a model democracy. The cultural leap is simply too great. So we may have to accept a Turkey and Pakistan run by military dictators, as Musharraf is doing in Pakistan today. The alternative, an Islamic fascist state with nuclear weapons, is just too awful to contemplate. In Iraq we may have to settle for less than Jeffersonian democracy. And Khomeinist Iran is clearly the next major threat for any president to face in 2009."
While I completely agree with what he has written, I think I detect a whiff of defeatism re: the idea that we should continue our struggle to struggle to promote freedom and democracy round the world. Just because it hasn't been done before does not mean that we should not keep trying. I see no need to settle for the ol' status quo of allowing Sadaams to rape and pillage under our protection; That didn't work either!
We can work with the Pervs and hope that the Turkish military will step in, because we are better off with a Turkey run by a military than we are allowing a democratic process to enact Sharia law. As long as the Turkish military moves civilization forward by allowing the people an increased amount of self-determination and freedom from tyranny... then that forward movement should be our goal. Perv is no George Washington - but he is moving the Paks forward in that his is moving against radical Islam, not sliding the country backwards as the Taliban caused Afghanistan to do. Perv's happy to support freedom against tyranny or the Taliban - as long as he's in charge. Moving forward - not back that's all we should need him to do to get our support.
I tell you there is only one thing that gives me pause about what I'm reading here. And that is that the Turks, who appear to be born to backstab having been outplayed by Chirac and the EU, are now crawling back to us, begging for forgiveness and promising to be good in the future - only so that we will give them something. And then of course as soon as they get it....well need I say more?
Posted by: AT ||
07/26/2007 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Its not local "Democracy with Muslim characteristics" somuch but how anti-Amer Amer Radicalists-Govtists, Globalists, etc. will PC use it to justify or empower anti-US Totalitarianism inside their own country.
From the always readable and interesting Roger L. Simon:
Perhaps Barack Obama thinks he's cool... or maybe a vote-getter.... by opening his mouth about talking without pre-condition to Castro, Ahmadinejad, etc. And maybe he is - the latter anyway. He obviously knows how to collect donations. But his naivety is extraordinary. At least I hope it's naivety and not something worse. Because the thought of the first African-American President sitting down to polite public conversation with this century's most prominent Holocaust-denier raises a large number of hackles on the neck of this onetime civil rights worker - a very large number. [Calm down, fella, you're getting angry.-ed. No kidding.]
But beyond the creepy racial overtones, one wonders if Obama knows anything about what is really going on. Does he know the state of negotiations with any of these nations? Did he know the state of play with Libya when Qaddafi recently walked back on nuclear weapons? I rather doubt it, because as most grownups realize, negotiations with crazy fascist dictators are usually best conducted in private. Public negotiations are at best a grandstand play.
And that is what Obama is doing - playing to the grandstand. I'm scared of someone who thinks that way in the presidency in a way that Hillary could never scare me.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/26/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I totally agree. Obama seems to me as a radical civil rights activist. The dems will never vote him in as their candidate anyway. The big money folks who decide who runs or not want someone who looks after their business interests. The good thing with Hillary is she already has 8 years experience. but before the election next year I imagine something will happen good or bad for the USA which will be the deciding factor, either way if its bad people will want the Republicans to stay because they have shown in the face of some nasty shit that they hold firm, if its good the republicans will stay because it must have been their doing.
George Bush maybe an idiot he may have started a war with Iraq under bad intelligence, but he stayed the course, Iraq only becomes Vietnam when we admit all is lost.
Posted by: Alex ||
07/26/2007 1:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I would not underestimate Obama. He is a canny politician, and for someone who is relatively inexperienced on the national level he has campaigned formidably. He could be difficult to contend with during the next election cycle.
My problem with him is that he is an unabashed, reflexive liberal. Since he is a minority with an easy charm and a polished speaking style the liberal MSM has treated him as a "white knight" for the Democrats so far, but the substance of his beliefs will have to withstand greater scrutiny in his future runs.
#6
But the troubling part is not Obama but his appeal to the masses so far. It only proves the trouble we are really in when you have so many people willing to vote for him and give him money.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/26/2007 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
GP
Obama is a nobody, a minor media creation that will fade as quickly as cheap towel in the desert sun. This is still very much the silly season of politics.
A leftist boob gets lots of props cause that's what the media wants.
#11
These clowns are free to uninformedly run off at the mouth until he/she/it becomes the Donk frontrunner The chosen one will then receive formal briefings about what is really going on, and then they can continue to run their mouths off mindlessly once more, albeit, while knowing better.
#2
So in all her travels, she's learned to speak Somali, probably Arabic, probably Ethiopian, certainly Dutch and speaks or at least writes English better than 95% of Americans, Brits, Scots, Irish, Ozzies, Kiwis and Canucks....
I'm thinking this is one fighteningly brilliant woman. And as far as courage goes, in the 99.9 percentile. I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment removing the requirement that POTUS be native-born.
General George Patton has come out of retirement to straighten out the assclowns Harry Ried and John Murtha and drill them as to why we are fighting in Iraq, and what it all means.
MUNICH, Germany, July 25 (UPI) -- It is a striking coincidence that the Indian and U.S. governments should have announced the successful conclusion of their long-stalled nuclear cooperation deal in the same week that India established its first overseas military base.
India's new base, an electronic listening post and radar station on the island of Madagascar, is perfectly situated to monitor the international waterways around South Africa and the Indian Ocean with its oil tanker routes to Asia. India has also leased an atoll from Mauritius on which a similar facility is to be built. Its navy has secured berthing rights in Oman, and signed an agreement last year to patrol the Mozambique coast. In 2003, the Indian navy provided seaward protection for the African Union summit at Mozambique.
The Indian Ocean is increasingly under Indian management, led by a fast-growing navy that is buying advanced French-made Scorpene "stealth" submarines and has just acquired its first ever U.S. warship, the former USS Trenton, a large amphibious transport and landing ship, along with U.S. UH-3H helicopters. Three months ago, India completed a $1.1 billion deal with the United States for Hercules military transport.
The United States sees India as a key strategic partner and as a potential balance against China's potential dominance of Asia, and is prepared to equip India for the role. Already one of the world's biggest customers for arms, spending over $10 billion in the last three years, India is now planning to buy 126 multi-role combat jets. The US F-16 and F/A-18 Super Hornet are seen as the main contenders in a deal that could be worth another $10 billion. A new study by India's Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry, "Private Sector Participation in Defense," suggests that India's imports of military hard and software should reach $30 billion by 2012.
This is the strategic context for the nuclear deal, which ends the isolation from the nuclear community that was imposed on India when it staged its first nuclear tests in 1998, and will allow India to import nuclear fuels and technology under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This will be important for India's civilian nuclear power program, but its main impact is symbolic in asserting the new closeness of the U.S. strategic partnership.
The deal has been stalled over some of the terms imposed by the U.S. Congress under the Hyde Act, which sought to impose certain restrictions on India. The first was to hold the deal hostage, allowing it to be suspended if India staged more nuclear tests. The second was to bring some, but not all, of India's nuclear rectors under the intensive inspection regime of the NPT and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The most authoritative opposition to the deal has come from Peter Iyengar, former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, who listed his concerns in an exclusive United Press International interview at his home in New Delhi with this reporter in February this year.
"As currently drafted, the agreement would force us to stop re-processing nuclear fuel, something we have been doing for thirty years," Iyengar said. "It would terminate our strategic program (India's nuclear weapons program) by exposing us to sanctions if we conducted nuclear tests. And it puts impossible barriers in our path to ongoing and future research, including our well-developed programs for fast-breeder reactors and to use thorium rather than uranium as a nuclear fuel," he added.
"By saying that India shall not re-process fuel and not develop the fast-breeder reactors, this deal undermines our ability to produce energy in the future when uranium runs out," Dr Iyengar went on. "This is a question of national sovereignty, of India's right and ability to decide such things for ourselves."
The Hyde Act was designed to be watertight, but somehow the Bush administration has managed to accommodate India's concerns. This was done, to widespread surprise last week, when Vice President Dick Cheney took personal charge of the talks in Washington with India's National Security adviser M.K. Narayanan, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and Anil Kakodkar, secretary of India's Department of Atomic Energy
Menon was packed and about to check out from his hotel when Cheney intervened and brought Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice into the final phase of talks, which opened with Cheney saying, "This deal must be done." The White House national security adviser Steven Hadley was also brought into the talks to fine tune the text of a document called "The 123 agreement" that spells out the details of the deal.
The precise terms have not yet been made public, and the final document is a frozen text, which means that it can now only be voted up or down, and not amended further. According to U.S. sources, it is based on Cheney's traditionally robust view of the president's prerogative over foreign policy and strategic issues, and allows George W. Bush or future presidents to give India a form of waiver under the terms of the Hyde Act when supreme U.S. national interests are deemed to be at stake.
The Democratic-controlled Congress may have doubts about this, but potential presidential candidates may see its usefulness. The increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, with two new Bush-appointed justices, is likely to sympathize with Cheney's view of the presidential prerogative.
The deal has been strongly backed by the wealthy and influential Indian community in the United States. Sanjay Puri, chairman of the U.S.-India Political Action Committee commented: "The United States and India have achieved what everyone thought was impossible when President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced their plan for a civil nuclear agreement in July 2005. Exactly two years later, the two nations have not only reached an agreement, but created a lifelong partnership between two nations that are committed to democratic principles and the idea of energy independence."
This also seals the presence on the world stage of India's emergence as a regional superpower in Asia, while becoming a close U.S. ally and a major economic and technological force. Next month, India will launch its first dedicated military reconnaissance satellite, CARTOSAT 2A, on one of its own launch vehicles. Two more advanced imaging satellites with Israeli synthetic aperture radars are to be launched next year for all-weather monitoring of Asian airspace, including China
It may also not be a coincidence that these developments come as China is upgrading its ballistic missile facility at central-north Delingha, where launch pads for older Dong Feng-4 intercontinental ballistic missiles are being modernized for new DF-21 medium-range missiles. A report this month by the Nuclear Information Project for the Federation of American Scientists concluded that the DF-21s "would be able to hold at risk all of northern India, including New Delhi."
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/26/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A number of inaccuracies:
- the first overseas base is not the Madagascar listening post but rather Ayni airbase in Tajikistan (choppers and eventually MiGs)
- the first nuclear test was in 1974 and the majority of sanctions against India are from this time.
- IAEA inspections were not really an issue. India agreed to place its civil power reactors under safeguards. It kept its BARC weapons complex (and plutonium production reactor) as well as 8 other heavy water reactors (needed for Plutonium and Tritium production) along with its Uranium enrichment facilities on the military side.
Its enormous breeder reactors (each loaded with a core of tons of plutonium) are likewise off limits. ElBaradei's inspections will never enter these facilities.
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/26/2007 7:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
US lawmakers issue warning over N-deal
US lawmakers have warned the Bush administration of "inconsistencies" in the 123 Agreement after reports that Washington has agreed to allow India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel under the civilian nuclear deal with New Delhi.
The warning came after the agreement between the US and India was finalised in extended talks in Washington last week.
In a letter to President George W Bush, as many as 23 Congressmen-led by Democratic lawmaker Edward Markey expressed their concern that perhaps Washington may have "capitulated" to India's demands on the agreement.
The Congress passed the Hyde Act less than a year ago, settling minimum conditions that must be met for nuclear cooperation with India, as well as the non-negotiable restrictions on such cooperation, Markey said.
Stating that these conditions and restrictions were not optional or advisory, Markey warned, "If the 123 Agreement has been intentionally negotiated to side-step or bypass the law and the will of Congress, final approval for this deal will be jeopardised."
In the letter, the lawmakers stressed "the necessity of abiding by the legal boundaries set by Congress" for nuclear cooperation.
"The Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation is subject to the approval of Congress, and any inconsistencies between the Agreement and the relevant US laws will call Congressional approval deeply into doubt," lawmakers told the White House.
They also picked upon India's growing economic and military ties to Iran as a factor which could imperil Congressional approval of the deal.
Among the bipartisan cosigners were Howard Berman (Senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee), Brad Sherman (chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee), Dan Burton (Senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee), Ellen Tauscher (chairwoman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee), Jeff Fortenberry, Henry Waxman and Republican Jane Harman (chairwoman of the Intelligence Subcommittee).
"The president cannot re-write laws during a closed-door negotiation session with a foreign government.
"Though some of us disagreed during last year's debate over nuclear cooperation with India, all of us are intent on defending the prerogatives of Congress and reinforcing that the law must be followed without exceptions," Markey said in a statement.
The Bush administration has to get Congressional approval on the bilateral deal before any nuclear cooperation can commence between the US and India.
The remaining steps include India negotiating a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the US obtaining consensus agreement from the Nuclear Suppliers Group to change its guidelines to allow transfers to India.
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/26/2007 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
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.
