#2
There have been quite enough changes in pro football in the last decade. They change the rules every freaking year, sort of the opposite of the soccer problem. "How I would change the NFL" just screams "I didn't have any ideas for this column."
If the Korean War, which began 60 years ago this past weekend, was America's forgotten war, Afghanistan has been America's ignored war.
Since President Obama authorized a surge of troops in Afghanistan in December 2009, there has been a notable absence of public debate or interest about this conflict.
Although the media has tracked conditions on the ground and more recently has examined the rapid deterioration of U.S. military strategy, Afghanistan has not elicited the same kind of civic dialogue that surrounded President George W. Bush's war in Iraq and certainly nothing like President Johnson's war in Vietnam.
Indeed, when the controversy over Gen. Stanley McChrystal's comments in Rolling Stone magazine erupted in the past week, one of the most surprising aspects of the story was that, for a brief moment, Americans were actually talking about Afghanistan once again. Our nation is in the middle of a war that has gone on for over nine years, but many people have not been paying attention.
Afghanistan cannot be ignored. The war, which started in the aftermath of 9/11, costs the federal government about $6.7 billion a month. That's more than the monthly cost of Iraq.
June 2010 marked one of the deadliest months in this war. Since the war began, more than 1,000 American servicemen and women have died. The government of Afghanistan, our ally, remains mired in corruption and teeters on instability. Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy is apparently not working its magic.
Many experts doubt that the president can abide by the July 2011 timetable that he set to begin withdrawal. The end is not in sight, and it is unclear whether policymakers even know what the end is. According to Newsweek, one expert working with the Pentagon commented, "We could sink in billions more dollars for another 10 to 20 years, and if we're lucky, we'll get Haiti ..."
What accounts for the utter lack of attention to this war?
The first factor has been the fragile state of the economy within the U.S. The severity of economic conditions since the financial crash in the fall of 2008 has naturally led citizens to focus on the health of their pocketbooks and the stability of their mortgage payments rather than on war and peace. The listless recovery that has left high rates of unemployment has means many families don't have the time or energy to pay attention to events overseas.
The second factor has to do with the political incentives that inhibit liberals and conservatives from making too much of an issue of this war. Many liberal Democrats have been either angry or quietly uneasy with Obama's decision to escalate troop levels in Afghanistan.
Yet they have generally remained silent since the surge began, fearing they could undercut Obama as he moved forward with health care, a high priority for Democrats.
They were also in a bind since they had based much of their criticism of President Bush on the claim that he had diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, where the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 had been given shelter by the Taliban, and used them for the war in Iraq, which they said was not essential to the war on terrorism.
At the same time, conservatives have not made much noise either. Although there are many conservatives who support President Obama's strategy, there are also political factors at work. Talking too much about Afghanistan cuts against a central argument that they want to make about this administration: that Democrats are weak on defense.
It is hard to make a hawk look like a dove. By focusing on other national security issues, such as President Obama's efforts to strengthen civil liberties in the war on terrorism, conservatives have found easier targets. Afghanistan, where Obama has continued and accelerated a central component of Bush's war-on- terrorism strategy, does not fit neatly into their narrative.
Finally, there is the persistent effect on wartime politics that results from not having a draft. Without a draft, many Americans simply don't feel or fear the costs of war. They don't feel the urgency of paying close attention to what is going on. Rather, our nation depends on the valiant efforts of our professional army to handle these challenges.
President Nixon, who pushed for the end of the draft in 1973, believed from the start of his term that much of the grass-roots anti-war movement was driven by the fears of middle-class families that their children would be sent into war. Nixon made ending the draft a top priority because he believed it would undercut this sentiment. Anti-war activism, in his mind, had to do primarily with having to go to war rather than the war itself.
In many respects, Nixon's prediction turned out to be true. Even with President Bush's war in Iraq, which strained public opinion and required more ground troops than any war in recent history, the nation did not experience the kinds of grass-roots protests that rocked Lyndon Johnson's administration in the 1960s.
The absence of a draft, combined with the unwillingness of Democrats or Republicans to call on citizens to sacrifice for the war effort through other means (such as higher taxes) produced national apathy even though our men and women are right in the middle of a conflict.
As a result of these factors, Afghanistan has remained off the radar. Perhaps with the McChrystal controversy, the nation will start asking tougher questions about what is going on in this war, what our objectives are and how the strategy is working.
Unfortunately, we will most likely turn our attention back to other issues, such as the feature story in Rolling Stone called "Lady Gaga Tells All." In doing so, we will continue an unhealthy pattern of fighting wars outside of the public mind.
#1
If you don't have a strategy - a reason for being in a war and running it a specific way - then get out. Don't kill and maim our troops for nothing.
#3
Destroy the opium any way possible as it helps fund jihad. Then work on cutting access to Iran and Pakistan and let the locals secure the rest of the country (with our air support and occasional special forces operations).
Starting to get it in Great Britain. Hopefully the U.S. is next.
At last, we are having the right argument for our time. Virtually everybody who is in touch with political reality now accepts that the old contest -- socialism vs capitalism -- is over. We all believe, with greater or lesser degrees of enthusiasm, in free-market economics. So the real source of contention that remains is the size and role of the state.
Anyone who thinks that this is a puny arena -- that the boundaries of debate have shrunk to a less inspirational, purely managerial scale -- is mistaken. The passion with which those on the Left are now defending their new turf should make it clear: this fight will be to the death because the power of government to control social and economic outcomes is seen by them as the last plausible incarnation of their moral world-view. The current arguments about welfare reform which the Government has robustly initiated are going to bring this abstract confrontation into the day-to-day experience of national life.
Now it is perfectly understandable that those who have a vested interest in state power -- public sector trade union leaders, for example -- should be prepared to risk everything to preserve it, but have the more thoughtful Left-liberal proponents really thought this through? Are they actually prepared to go down fighting for the idea that the state is the source of social virtue and must be the answer to all of our civic problems?
Continued on Page 49
In recent years, when North Korea took provocative actions, Western countries have always looked to China, regarded as the only country that has influence on North Korea, in the hope that it will get tough with North Korea and change its reckless behavior.
The latest example is South Korea's investigation accusing North Korea of sinking South Korean warship, the Cheonan, in March. The US and South Korea are pushing sanction against North Korea in the UN. Obviously, they are not satisfied with China's modest response to this incident.
I recently covered on-site a seminar of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington DC. Thomas Christensen, a professor with Princeton University and former deputy assistant secretary of State for Chinese affairs, expressed his disappointment with China.
He said that China's "inability or unwillingness to take stronger and more effective measures to change that behavior by North Korea has served to undercut a lot of China's foreign policy strategy. There is a very high cost for China in what North Korea is doing."
This sentiment is spreading in Washington diplomatic circles. Some even argue that whether China supports the punishment of North Korea over the Cheonan incident will be a litmus test for Beijing's sincerity in cooperating with the US on global issues.
From the views of these experts, it seems that as long as China is tough enough on North Korea, the problem will be solved automatically.
Some scholars on the scene questioned this rhetoric. Why does the US blame China every time for a reckless North Korea? It's as if in dealing with a naughty child, you do not talk to him directly but ask his friendly neighbor to punish him. It does not seem to be reasonable.
Actually, US scholars admit that the US has few options in dealing with North Korea. Cooperation among China and South Korea on North Korea issues has been hobbled by impulses toward political, strategic and economic competition. The fundamental obstacle to the trilateral cooperation is rooted in the deferent interests and approaches.
China's strategy toward North Korea is to maintain a peaceful and stable Korean Peninsula, no matter what happens. This is understandable because China could not afford the flood of refugees if the North Korean regime collapsed. More importantly, the success of the US "regime change" policy would bring a geopolitical disorder to China.
In fact, like US-Japan alliance, US-South Korean alliance is also a bargaining chip for the US to hedge China. Bonnie Glaser, senior fellow of the CSIS, pointed out that China harbors numerous suspicions about South Korea and US intentions toward the North.
China worries that the US allies would use a unified peninsula as a base for military operations in the Taiwan Straits and that the US would reunify the peninsula to further its "encirclement" of China. Hence why the Chinese don't want reunification and why they encourage North Korea.
Therefore, to relieve Chinese concerns, the US should offer strategic reassurances to China, especially taking more cautious and prudent approaches to the Taiwan question, and reducing China's fear. US-South Korean alliance should enhance the transparency of its operations to ease China's worries. Bow to us, we are China and we are superior.
Moreover, the US should not overestimate the influence of China on North Korea. North Korea has been playing games between China and the US over years, trying to get benefits from both. But the US has no consistent policy toward North Korea and sometimes is also trapped in strategic dilemmas.
The Obama administration may have changed the policy of the Bush administration, which refused to continue bilateral contacts with North Korea, but does not change its hostile policy toward North Korea.
The US often uses both carrot and stick in international affairs, but for North Korean issue, it seems the US has only a high-held big stick, but no hope of giving a sweet carrot. After all, the US treats North Korea as an axis of evil rather than a normal country, whose reasonable security concerns need to be taken care of. The fact that the North Koreans lie through their teeth constantly has nothing to do with this, I'm sure.
On Tuesday, a study report released by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations called the Obama administration's policy toward North Korea vague and "half-hearted." The report recommended a denuclearization strategy that includes elements of both coercion and diplomacy, which means taking the necessary tough measures to reach clearer goals while strengthening engagement with the people of North Korea.
However, the 23 experts who formed a task force to write the report differ on detailed tactics. Some argue that this report is not creative or meaningful in addressing North Korea.
The US itself has to play it by ear. Why does it require China to have a silver bullet?
The author is a Washington DC-based Chinese journalist. In other words, this column was approved by the Ministry of Information in Beijing.
#1
As per CHINA, IMO NORTH KOREA = ARMENIA for Russia in that both Chin + Russ don't mind seeing their smaller neighbors sweat a little or alot in fear iff it means the former getting major international concessions from same or external Powers.
REALITY > RUSSIAN ORTHODOX-domin RUSSIA won't allow Armenia to be mil conquered by Azerbaijan or any other regional Muslim state. DITTO CHINA wid DPRK AGZ THE US-ROK-JAPAN, REGARDLESS IFF THE DPRK IS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT COMMENCED INITIAL HOSTILITIES. FEW IFF ANY NET PERTS + BLOGGERS, PRO- or ANTI-, BELIEVE CHINA WILL NOT INTERVENE IN DPRK TO KEEP THE US, JAPAN, OR UNO FROM DEFEATING THE DPRK.
#2
I'm sorry! This author is deluded. The NKors, and Burma and Pakiwakiland are all Chinese Lapdogs engaging in a war of a thousand cuts against all not China.
#3
Why does the US blame China every time for a reckless North Korea? It's as if in dealing with a naughty child, you do not talk to him directly but ask his friendly neighbor to punish him. It does not seem to be reasonable.
Why does the world blame the US every time for Israeli acts? Welcome to the club.
"'Those Who Support Terror Are Collaborators Of Terrorists,' Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Very Rightfully Asserted... Of Course, He Was Referring To the PKK"
"Since 2001, between 8,000 and 12,000 rockets -- which future Nobel Peace Prize winner Khaled Mash'al once described as 'modest, home-made rockets' -- have been fired. The first casualties were reported in 2004 when two civilians were killed by a 'modest, home-made' Qassam rocket, including four-year-old Afik Zahavi. Afik's 28-year-old mother was critically injured and nine others were wounded. Hamas claimed responsibility.
"'Those who support terror are collaborators of terrorists,' Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan very rightfully asserted a few days ago. Of course, he was referring to the PKK. In the past, Mr. Erdoğan's main reference point about Operation Cast Lead, in which the Israeli Defense Forces killed hundreds of civilians in the Gaza Strip, was the famous Goldstone Report.
"Last September, Mr. Erdoğan's principal reference point on Israel's Gaza offensive found out that: '...they (Hamas' activities) constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population. These actions would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity...The rocket and mortar attacks launched by armed Palestinian groups have caused terror.'
"Another finding: 'Hamas continues to view all armed activity directed against Israel as... a legitimate right of the Palestinian people.'
"The Goldstone Report, also accusing Israel for war crimes and other offenses, further found out that: '...security services under the control of the Gaza authorities carried out extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests, detentions and ill treatment of people...'
"No doubt, Mr. Erdoğan is right: supporting terrorists is tantamount to collaborating with them. Last week, Mr. Erdoğan made it clear that 'Hamas is not a terrorist organization,' and he even said that to President Barack Obama, although Hamas is listed as such by the United States. Good... We can now expect Washington to drop Hamas from its list of terrorist entities.
"What makes Mr. Erdoğan think that the Hamas chaps are as remote to terror as U.S. congressmen or members of the European Parliament?"
"Erdoğan's Claims That 'There Is No Islamic Terror' Have Left Several Islamic Terror Organizations Heartbroken"
"One of Mr. Erdoğan's favorite statements is his famous line, 'There is no Islamic terror.' Recently the online humor 'daily' Zaytung fabricated a story whose lead paragraph read: 'Erdoğan's claims that "there is no Islamic terror" have left several Islamic terror organizations heartbroken. A press release from Al-Qaeda's press section read: "The prime minister's remarks are very discouraging. We are doing our best!"'"
"Last month, at the Alliance of Civilizations Forum in Rio de Janeiro, Mr. Erdoğan reiterated that 'there is no Islamic terror' and that 'the words Islam and terror could never come together.' I tried, and Google gave me 9,510,000 entries when I typed 'Islam' and 'terror.' It's bizarre that a significantly large crowd all over the world has been producing texts on something that does not exist.
"According to Wikipedia, 'Islamic terrorism is terrorism committed by Muslims, and aimed at achieving various political ends like Osama bin Ladin's stated goal of ending American presence in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, overthrowing "infidel regimes" and stopping American support for Israeli treatment of Palestinians.'
"I have no idea if there can be such things as 'Christian terrorism' or 'Jewish terrorism.' Mr Erdogan did not say. But he did tell us more than once that Israel committed 'state terror.' So, there is Israeli state terror, PKK terror and Ergenekon terror, but there isn't Islamic terror. Since Mr. Erdoğan invariably singles out Islam as one religion that cannot be associated with terrorism, he must be thinking that other religions (or atheism) can be."
"I Have Never Been Privileged Enough To... Ask [Erdogan] If There Could Be Christian or Jewish or Atheist Terror"
"Too bad, I have never been privileged enough to be physically close to the prime minister and ask him if there could be Christian or Jewish or atheist terror. I might also be curious and ask him what kind of terrorism NATO has been fighting in Afghanistan, with the non-combat from the Turkish military supporting that fight.
"Really, why does Turkey maintain a military presence in Afghanistan? What does a multinational NATO task force do in Afghan lands? Fighting insects? Corruption? Having vacation in the Talibanland?
"What kind of terror was it, really, which targeted a British bank and two synagogues in Istanbul in 2003, killing over 50 people? Red Army Brigades? The PKK? The Ergenekon?
"Mr. Erdoğan's rhetoric on what is and what isn't terror as well as who is and who isn't a terrorist is more than problematic, especially for a prime minister whose country is fighting terrorists who, for some, are 'freedom fighters.'
"It must be a bad irony that it was the Turks who complained for decades about other nations' double standards on labeling some terrorists as terrorists and some as freedom fighters."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/28/2010 10:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Put those conferences on godforsaken privately owned remote islands, admission by invitation only. This looks like a game of cops beating rioters and rioters beating cops.
Personally, I have never seen anything like this and am appalled at the terrifying political and rhetorical shift that has occurred in Canada's treatment of its community organizers in the last few days.
Canadians now see what future community organizers are capable of.
#3
ION CHINESE MIL FORUM > THE UNITED STATES OF BANKRUPTED STATES | [Bloomberg]STATES OF CRISIS FOR 46 US STATE GOVTS FACING GREEK/GREEK-STYLE DEFICITS.
#5
What complete and utter drivel. Damn funny tho'. No idea which demo the author attended because so few of the accusations are remotely real, but it wasn't Toronto. torontonians are left with the distinct impression that the "demonstrators" expected beer tents, music and hot dogs. To be allowed to do whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted and howsoever they wanted.
"On Saturday, there was no sign of protester violence, among the 25, 000 plus people who took to the streets, contrary to what many corporate media reports are conveying. Referring to the film footage of rioters in action, I take it. A few banks, franchises and corporations had their windows smashed in symbolic shows of property damage. On the contrary, levels of police violence have been extreme and brutal"
There were about 4,000 protestors at the height of their march. Notice that window smashing, vandalism and looting are dismissed as "symbolism" not violence by dear young author. Police were very restrained. The youts biggest complaints when detained were: they had to keep asking for toilet paper, it was cold (police issued sweatshirts and sweat pants to those complaining of cold until they ran out), they only got sandwiches to eat and not a hot meal, there were no beds provided and they couldn't lie down... on and on in this vein.
Police were cherry-picking Black ops from the crowds. These guys changed in and out of their "anarchist" blacks and were tracked by police and arrested with backpacks full of fun stuff to throw.
The rest of the article is full of the same flights of fancy and errors. Exaggerations abound. 25,000 people LMFAO. Didn't quite reach 4,000 even at its height. Same grain o salt for every other word in the article.
#6
A funny bit elsewhere was of a protester who was detained for 19 hours, and complained of being fed only "butter and cheese sandwiches".
Somebody immediately commented that force feeding people butter and cheese sandwiches for 19 hours clearly constitutes torture. You figure, 3 or 4 sandwiches an hour is somewhere between 57 and 76 sandwiches. Those monsters!
Not only do you leave looking like Jabba the Hut, but you are constipated for a month.
#1
This past Tuesday represents a New Day in South Carolina politics. A conservative, Bible-belt state known for its past resistance to civil rights and its current lack of women in elected office (ranked 50th on this front) strongly supported an Indian-American woman for the states highest office and an African-American man for an overwhelmingly white Congressional district. Even more interesting in both cases these candidates were chosen by the Republican primary voters over white men representing the epitome of the South Carolina good-ole boy establishment.
There goes the donk argument that all is motivated by racism or sexism.
The U.S. Navy has relieved the captain of a frigate (USS John L. Hall), because, two months ago, his ship bumped into a pier as it was docking in the Black Sea port of Batumi, Georgia. There was no damage to the pier, but the Hall suffered damage costing $160,000 to repair. After the investigation was over, the navy concluded that the captain should be relieved for "loss of confidence in his ability to command."
That makes seven ship captains relieved so far this year, more than twice the rate that it has been relieving them in the last few years. That, in turn, is an increase over the rate for the 1990s. Other strange things are happening. One of the most recent dismissals was unusual for two reasons. First, the dismissed captain was a woman, and, secondly, the navy gave the reason (abusive treatment of the crew, and the captains' demeanor and temperament). Complaints from the crew had been coming in for some time, and the captain was relieved as she was at the end of her tour of duty on the USS Cowpens, and in the process of turning over command to another officer. The dismissed captain went off to her next assignment, as a staff officer, but her career prospects are now rather dim.
The navy rarely releases details of why the officers are relieved. But the usual reasons are character flaws of one kind or another. Running the ship aground is seen as a rather obvious failing, but it is not the most common one. Those would be cases involving "zipper control" (adultery with another officers' wife, or a subordinate). The British also relieve a lot of commanders, and are more forthcoming with the reasons. One British skipper got the sack recently for "bullying." That is similar to what happened on the Cowpens.
In the last decade, the U.S. Navy has been relieving more commanders (of ships and units). In the first few years of the 21st century, the navy relieved 6-8 commanders a year. In 2003, that went up to seventeen, and the number has remained high every since. At the end of the Cold War, in the late 1980s, the rate was about a third less, and after the Cold War ended, it declined further.
So why has the relief rate gone up more than doubled in the last few years? With more women aboard warships, there have been more reliefs for, as sailors like to put it, "zipper failure." There may have been more than are indicated, as sexual misconduct is often difficult to prove, and a captain who is having zipper control problems often has other shortcomings as well. Senior commanders traditionally act prudently and relieve a ship commander who demonstrates a pattern of minor problems and who they "lack confidence in." Chester Nimitz grounded his destroyer as an Ensign and received a letter of reprimand for it. Where would he be in today's Navy?
Many naval officers see the problem not of too many captains being relieved, but too many unqualified officers getting command of ships and units in the first place. Not every naval officer qualified for ship command. Only a small percentage of the 53,000 commissioned officers gets one. The competition for ship commands is pretty intense. This, despite the fact that officers know that, whatever goes wrong on the ship, the captain is responsible.
It's a hard slog for a new ensign (officer rank O-1) to make it to a ship command. For every hundred ensigns entering service, about 90 will stay and make it to O-4 (Lieutenant Commander), usually after about nine years of service. About 67 of those ensigns will eventually get to serve as XO (executive officer, the number two officer on a ship) after 10-12 years of service. Some 69 of those ensigns will make it to O-5 (Commander), where it first becomes possible to command a ship (a frigate or destroyer.) About 38 of those hundred ensigns will get such a command, usually after 18-20 years of service, and for about 18 months. About 22 of those ensigns will make it to O-6 (Captain) after 20-21 years of service. But only 11 of those ensigns (now captains) will get a major seagoing command (cruiser, destroyer squadron). Officers who do well commanding a ship will often get to do it two or three times before they retire after about 30 years of service.
But with all this screening and winnowing, why are more unqualified officers getting to command ships, and then getting relieved because they can't hack it? Navy captains point to the growing popularity of "mentoring" by senior officers (that smaller percentage that makes it to admiral.) While the navy uses a board of officers to decide which officers get ship commands, the enthusiastic recommendation of one or more admirals does count. Perhaps it counts too much.
While the navy is still quick to relieve any ship commander that screws up (one naval "tradition" that should never be tampered with), up until that point, it is prudent not to offend any admirals by implying that their judgment of "up and coming talent" is faulty. In the aftermath of these reliefs, it often becomes known that the relieved captain had a long record of problems. But because he was "blessed" by one or more admirals, these infractions were overlooked. The golden boys tend to be very personable and, well, look good. The navy promotion system is organized to rise above such superficial characteristics, but apparently the power, and misuse, of mentoring, has increasingly corrupted the process.
#2
Knowing that they aren't being told key information about their pets -- and I'm sure the admirals are keenly aware of it -- would make me extremely uncomfortable to champion anyone, were I in the position to do so.
#3
And who could think about zipper problems when you allow gays not to mention the effect on crew's morale when you can't take a shower without second thoughts.
#4
There is also the 'ring knocker' problem. If your not a 'regular' officer, your command prospects are dimmed to almost non-existence. Met many 'academy' types in my career and most were on a fast track that non academy types would never get in the way of, let alone do anything to slow the 'express'. Had some really good ones as bosses but most were in too much of a hurry for their next assignment to worry about doing a good job at the current one, but I also admit to sour grapes.
Posted by: Total War ||
06/28/2010 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Total...See it on the Reserve side, also. A very high percentage of the senior O's are ring knockers. Most of the guys I know are pretty good O's as they have had a heavy dose of civilian reality to temper the academy mentality. But...it's a fact that academy types like to pick their own for promotion, command, and senior billets.
Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren is reported to have told Israeli diplomats that the U.S. and Israel are experiencing a tectonic rift,' not a temporary crisis.
There is no crisis in Israel-US relations because in a crisis there are ups and downs,' Oren told a a closed briefing to senior officials in the Israeli Foreign Ministry's North America Branch and research division, Yedioth Ahronoth's Itamar Eichner reports.
According to the Israeli diplomats, Oren said 'Relations are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart,'' Haaretz said.
Oren noted that contrary to Obama's predecessors - George W. Bush and Bill Clinton - the current president is not motivated by historical-ideological sentiments toward Israel but by cold interests and considerations,' Haaretz reports. He added that his access as Israel's ambassador to senior administration officials and close advisers of the president is good. But Obama has very tight control over his immediate environment, and it is hard to influence him. This is a one-man show,' Oren is quoted as saying.'
Oren told Haaretz he denied the report, which the paper attributed to "five Israeli diplomats, some of whom took part in the briefing or were informed about the details." The Israeli Embassy did not immediately respond to query from POLITICO Sunday.
Oren's remarks come ahead of a July 6 meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama. The White House meeting the fifth between Netanyahu and Obama had been originally scheduled to take place earlier this month but was postponed after Israel's interception of a Gaza aid flotilla on May 31. The confrontation, in which eight Turks and one Turkish American were killed, has caused a crisis in Israeli-Turkish relations which the U.S. has been trying to defuse.
Oren told the diplomats that the Gaza flotilla violence had sparked international outrage.
"Even our close friends came out against us," Haaretz reported Oren told the closed diplomatic briefing. "Only after some time, when video from the ship arrived and was aired by the American media, did public opinion begin to shift in Israel's favor."
Obama met with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Toronto Saturday.
The two leaders had a wide-ranging and candid discussion between allies that addressed Iran's nuclear program, Middle East peace, the flotilla incident, Afghanistan, the PKK and terrorism,' according to the White House readout of the conversation.
#1
"Tectonic Rift" > All things equal, sa the adage goes, THATS 9-11 + WOT, e.g. A WAR/STRUGGLE FOR OWG-NWO INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PRO-US-VERSUS ANTI-US OWG, ETC. AKA "ANTI-STATUS QUO" = EFFECT OR CHANGE(S) TO THE PRESENT NATIONAL-GLOBAL ORDER.
The US is not immune, nor for that matter Radical Islam or World Islam [Saudi Arabia vs Egypt vs Tehran vs Turkey vs Indonesia, etc. for CONTROL OF ISLAM].
Lest we fergit, 1990's CLINTONISM > RIGHTISM IS THE NEW LEFISM, FASCISM IS THE NEW COMMUNISM, USSA IS NOW THE USSR, GLOBALISM + COMMUNALISM/COMMUNITARIAN-ISM IS THE NEW NATIONALISM = INDIVIDUALISM, COMMUNISN IS THE NEW CAPITALISM [dare we fergit "Commpitalism"]
....@???
20th century "POLITIX-AS-USUAL" + SIMILAR IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE NOR TOLERATED, BY ANYONE - the Good, the Bad, the Fugly + Ugly, etal. NOT EVEN BY THE MODERATES/CENTRISTS???
IOW, NOT just a LOCAL OR REGIONAL ENVIRO KILLER, BUT A "PLANET KILLER"???
"PLANET KILLER" > Thus of course, GOOD OWG + "GLOBALISM" demands our Politicos let the Gulf Oil Spill go on for many more Months, Years or perhaps Decades? while OWG GEOPOL POSTURING = HEIARCHAL "POLE POSITION" IS BEING SET UP.
Once again , wid feeling, "AIRPLANE" Comedy Movie skit > POINT COUNTERPOINT > THEY BUILT THAT DEEPWATER OIL RIG [thingy] FAIR + SQUARE - I SAY, LET IT GUSH!
D *** NG IT, MORIARITY, NUTHIN SAYS OWG-NWO + "STAR TREK" THAN THE FUTURE NEW OWG STARTING OUT WID COMMIE OR SOCIALIST-STYLE "UNIVERSAL/
GLOBAL REGRESSIONISM", i.e. THE NEW OWG HAS NO OIL-ENERGY + THE MASSES ARE "PERMANENTLY POOR BUT OPTIMISTIC", vee GREATER-AND-LONGER-THAN-1929 GLOBAL ECON RECESSION-DEPRESSION???
#2
COMET APOPHIS 2029-2036 + GUAM, EARTH-VISIBLE MOON EXPLOSIONS > Back in "Battlestar/Colonial" Yarn 2010, our future OWG-NWO may suffer
To wit,
* LACK OF $$$ to build effective + reliable OWG = GLOBAL SPACE DEFENSES.
* BP OIL GUSH "PLANET KILLER" = LITTLE TO NO FUEL TO POWER THE ENGINES OF OUR MIGHTY, ANTI-SPACE ROCK LR STRATEGIC MISSLES, NOR FOR OIL-DERIVED ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR SAME.
* OWG "BUREAUCRACY".
* As per the MSM-Net, iff MANY or MOST or even ALL of our US-World Perts are WRONG = "MOSTLY WRONG" ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING, i.e. MAN + ONLY MAN [Human Govt-Society] BEING THE SOLE/UNIQUE CAUSE OF GW = DUBYA, DARE THE PERTS BE WRONG = "MOSTLY WRONG" ABOUT ANYTHING OR EVERYTHING ELSE, e.g. APOPHIS or OTHER INCOMING SPACE ROCKS = SPACE NEOS ETC., "BEST" MATH + MODELS + THEORIES, FOR SAME???
AND, NOT counting 2013 + SUN-SPECIFIC SOLAR = GEOMAGNETIC STORMS.....natural space phenominae.
On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.
The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.
Continued on Page 49
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.
