Interesting bit from Strategy Page about Pakistan's relation to what's going on in Afganistan.
Pakistan considers Afghanistan a potential problem that has to be neutralized. Westerners must keep in mind that "Afghanistan" (as a region) is where several waves of invaders have poured into South Asia and upset many apple carts. The tribal areas on the Pakistani side of the border are part of this historical "Afghanistan". Most of the 40 million Pushtun tribal peoples live on the Pakistani side of the border. Pakistani government officials are always coming up with new schemes to keep the tribes busy with each other, and not planning mischief against the lowlanders (the majority of Pakistan's population). The Taliban was one of these schemes, which got out of control. Same with Islamic radicalism in general. Thanks, Paks
(AKI) - Kuwait is afraid that Iran has secret plans to produce nuclear arms at the Bushehr nuclear reactor in the country's southwest and elsewhere in the country, according to the head of a leading think-tank.
Sami Al-Faraj, president of the Kuwait Centre for Strategic Studies, told Adnkronos International (AKI) on Tuesday that the country "was living in fear" about Tehran's nuclear plans. He said Kuwaitis also had serious concerns about the potential impact of a radiation leak or an earthquake in the area surrounding the Bushehr nuclear plant, which is only 200 kilometres from Kuwait.
"We would be the first city to be hit as a result of the impact if anything goes wrong at Bushehr," Al-Faraj told AKI. "People say that there is no need for us to to suffer from Bushehr. The greater problem is that something will go wrong. We are under threat. The situation is dangerous"
"We have 17 monitoring stations and all these stations have extra equipment for monitoring radiation.Unless this problem is dealt with scientifically, we will remain in danger."
Media reports on Monday claimed that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly has a secret plan to accelerate nuclear arms production by simulating a breakdown at the nuclear reactor of Bushehr. According to a memorandum circulated among intelligence services and cited in the Italian daily, La Stampa, the plan was developed after Israeli defence forces struck a suspected nuclear facility in northern Syria in September 2007.
Al-Faraj said many people in Kuwait were preoccupied by the threat from Iran. "Iran today is intervening in the affairs of Arab nations next to us - Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine," he said. "So we always ask the rhetorical question, 'Imagine if Iran were to be a nuclear power, what would Iran do.'
"If it is a conventional power and intervening in nations and trying to change the loyalties of Arab states, like Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and Bahrain, can we imagine what Iraq could do if it possessed a nuclear weapon.
"We cannot even imagine and we cannot imagine the international community letting Iran get away with this."
Al-Faraj said the other threat was conflict between Iran and Israel if a nuclear Iran does not materialise and Kuwait is caught in a crossfire. "We would be in the middle of two nations exchanging missiles," he said. "I am giving you a doomsday scenario but we cannot live without expecting a worst case scenario."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
STANDING BY THE STORY
The Obama campaign spent more than five hours on Monday attempting to figure out the best refutation of the explosive New York Post report that quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying that Barack Obama during his July visit to Baghdad demanded that Iraq not negotiate with the Bush Administration on the withdrawal of American troops. Instead, he asked that they delay such negotiations until after the presidential handover at the end of January.
The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.
Instead, Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told reporters that Obama told the Iraqis that they should not rush through what she termed a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of U.S. forces until after President Bush left office. In other words, the Iraqis should not negotiate an American troop withdrawal.
According to a Senate staffer working for Sen. Joseph Biden, Biden himself got involved in the shaping of the statement. "The whole reason he's on the ticket is the foreign policy insight," explained the staffer.
#1
Worldview your way out of that one, Wonder Boy.
Posted by: tep ||
09/17/2008 1:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So -- it's a difference of "demanding" and "delay."
Already having a "What is the meaning of is?" moment?
It was a pretty good sign it's true, when McCain release a press release concerning the statement.
In case you haven't read this (I read it here first at Rantburg U... in a comment... yeaaaaa) H/T to oh.. I'm so sorry, I don't remember who. You can stand up if you want, but I won't ask you to stand up.)
In the New York Post, conservative Iranian-born columnist Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying the Democrat made the demand when he visited Baghdad in July, while publicly demanding an early withdrawal.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview, according to Taheri. . . .
But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.
In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.
#8
I agree, OS. However, no one has ever actually been prosecuted under the Logan Act, and Obambi won't be either. It would be a great test case, though.
#11
Asking for soldiers to stay in harms way to benifit an election is treason. I know he will never get nailed for this, but if he wins, we know the military are pawns for his own benifit. Just F&*king wrong. God help America
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/17/2008 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#12
This won't mean a hill of beans. Obama cannot prevent Bush from ordering the vast majority of US forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, then Iraq refusing to allow their return, saying they are "unnecessary."
On top of that the Pentagon would suddenly develop a major budget shortfall, and be unable to shift the personnel back to Iraq without a major new appropriation passed by congress.
#13
Hussein keeps trying to burnish his management skills. I'd say this demonstrates his ability to manage a large criminal enterprise, which his entire campaign is. I keep getting mailers from the fool for a donation. Maybe I'll get a very large shovel on my next trip to Home Depot and donate that. Keep digging idiot.
#14
An empty suit with lots of bad advisors from the Clinton adminsitration. Besides being #2 in donations from Fannie and Freddie, a Freddie official responsible for this mess was in charge of VP vetting.
#15
Question: What circulation is this story getting outside the web? And the article (posted elsewhere on today's Burg) about McCain pointing out Fannie and Freddie's malfeasance: how far is that circulating?
How does one find out whether people are actually aware of these things? I'd like to know. The local birdcage liner gives the election ten inches of general news now that Mr. Obama is struggling. Sound bites on TV and radio are not particularly enlightening. So, is the word getting out?
#18
Mark Levin, a right wing radio host from DC urges all of us to call or email Congress and the White House demanding a Special Prosecutor be assigned to expose the democrats connections with the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac meltdowns.
I urge the same. We collectively stopped the Dubai Ports World which was just a Muslim business from their takeover of our ports. We can certainly pressure the president and Congress to sacrifice some of their corrupt in trade for our taxes. The offenders will all be donkeys, so get those calls going.
It's our country only if we are willing to take it back.
#19
Tell 'em about the 'Malefactors of Great Wealth,' John!
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#20
and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.
It didn't 'leak' because the Maliki government didn't want it to.
Apparently the Maliki government doesn't see Obama as being the strong horse (for now), and is hedging its bets.
#23
Now who will have the b***s to pursue an investigation?
Posted by Ulusoling Hatfield4645
You know who. The soon to be former Governer of the 49th state to join the Union, that's who.
The only real question is how far will she get with this once she's inside the Beltway?
#24
They should impeach Bush for allowing this to happen to Obama. If Bush hadn't gone to war in Iraq then Obama would not have had to have this secret negotiation on delaying the SFA. Its all Bush's fault, don't you see!
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/17/2008 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Logan Act Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
In response Move America Forward PAC released an ad this morning slamming Senator Barack Obama for his disgraceful political games with the US military:
#27
If you interpreted the Logan Act in a very restrictive way, all the hundreds of Governors and Mayors who take foreign trips to brag about the companies in their State/City and how much they can do for the foreign govt are guilty (or get the govts to invest in commercial real estate in their states).
I think there is in effect a very high bar to leap to commit a crime here.
#28
This POS doesn't seem to know when to stop digging, does he? I hope enough people are smart enough to see through the flim-flam and NOT put this "person" into a position of trust. He's not worth it.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/17/2008 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#29
You can't hit him with the Logan Act! He's a citizen of the world....
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie, formerly known as Swamp Blondie ||
09/17/2008 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
#30
The problem is OP that the MSM will willingly provide him all the cover he needs.
And there are a *lot* of people who still rely on the MSM for all their news. If the MSM doesn't metion it - these people will never know. All they will know is that Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and whatever bullshit lies Charles Gibson and the gang will tell them.
#32
If you interpreted the Logan Act in a very restrictive way, all the hundreds of Governors and Mayors who take foreign trips to brag about the companies in their State/City and how much they can do for the foreign govt are guilty (or get the govts to invest in commercial real estate in their states).
I think there is in effect a very high bar to leap to commit a crime here.
MHW
I do not believe so, mhw. The separation of powers distinguishes the government of the United States from individual states, so those entities are not covered. In addition,t he logan act, per the quote, relates only to discussions relating to disputes and controversies, so strictly promotional activities with foreign powers is permissible. It is when, as a condition for some agreement, that the foreign government wants the visitor to intercede on behalf of that foreign goveernment in a dispute with the United States, or run interference to oppose a policy of the United States government that would adversely affect the rest of the country, then the Logan act applies.
#33
I believe the O-Man (or his 'team') didn't want the "Strategic Framework Agreement" to go forward now as they wanted to make it look like the Iraqis suddenly changed their minds and fell under his 'spell' once he was sworn in as president. This would make his first '60 days' look like he was actually accomplishing something. He was trying to play the 'arab game' with respects to saying one thing and doing another. Unfortunately for him, the Iraqis have a tad more experience in the 'deception' department.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
09/17/2008 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Mhw is correct about the Logan Act being a high bar.
However, Obama cleared it with the ease of an olympic pole vaulter.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/17/2008 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#35
The funny part about this is how the Pentagon, the Bush administration, and the Iraqis had taken all of this into account even before Obama was a candidate.
It is called prior planning. The assumption had to have been that the Democrats would eventually find some way of screwing things up, just like they did in Vietnam. So Iraq *has* to be completely prepared for independence by next inauguration day.
If Obama is elected, immediately the Iraqis might *demand* that US forces leave their country without delay. Any hesitation, for any reason, and they will protest to the UNSC that the US mandate is over.
And Iraq will do this because we have told them ahead of time that they will have to do this, to protect them from the bitter hatred of the Democrats. Otherwise, Bush might order US forces out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, as Plan 'B'.
Iraq could then erect barriers to their return, and the Pentagon could complain they don't have the funds to bring troops back to Iraq.
Whatever works. The Pentagon has a long and angry memory of congress and the Democrats betraying them, and they are not going to let it happen again.
The Swat Taliban have agreed to leave Kooza Bandai following a deal brokered with a peace jirga on Tuesday. Talking to reporters, peace jirga head Syed Inamur Rehman said security forces would also vacate the area after clearing mines and remote controlled explosives. The jirga has also requested security forces and the Taliban to cease fire for 24 hours. The agreement came a day after the Taliban released 25 Frontier Corps personnel. However, Inter Services Public Relations spokesman Major Nadeem denied any ceasefire with the Taliban, saying that the deal was between the Taliban and the local jirga. "The military has no concern with the ceasefire agreement between the Taliban and the jirga," he said. Meanwhile, the Taliban fired two rockets at the Frontier House in Kabal tehsil as security forces continued shelling local Taliban hideouts. Security forces have handed over bodies of four people killed in clashes between security forces and the Taliban in Kooza Bandai. A curfew break up to 7pm has been announced in the district, except Kabal tehsil and the Kanjo Bridge area.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
#1
Let me get this straight,
If the "Seurity Forces" leave first, then and only then will the Taliban "Cease fire"?
Only an idiot would fall for this ploy?
(or is that the whole idea?)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/17/2008 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
there's enough winking and blinking going on to exceed Nancy Pelosi at the last State Of The Union speech
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/17/2008 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
The Bush administration expects an uphill battle in Congress for permission to use counterterrorism funds to upgrade Pakistan's F-16 fighters, the State Department's top diplomat for South Asia said on Monday.
But even if lawmakers balk, the State Department believes it has the authority to shift counterterrorism aid to the fighter programme. "For the moment, we're not taking a legalistic approach to this. We're trying to work it out with the Congress," Richard Boucher, assistant secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, said in an interview with Reuters.
Analysts say the F-16 and other big-ticket military items have in the past been viewed by Islamabad as weapons to help Pakistan counter its rival, India. In July, two senior Democratic lawmakers asked the administration not to use the $226.5 million to refurbish the F-16s. They said they feared the plan diverted cash from more urgent counterterrorism equipment like helicopters and night-vision goggles.
But Boucher said the F-16s had also been used for counterterrorism missions in hundreds of sorties targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda in the Tribal Areas in recent months. The F-16 upgrade was badly needed, he said, and would give Pakistan a more effective counterterrorism tool, enabling forces to work at night and improve precision-strike capability.
He also said the money would come from areas such as maritime patrol programmes, which were not as urgently needed as the fighter upgrades. "I think it's an uphill climb but we don't shy away from uphill climbs," Boucher said of the State Department's effort to convince Congress to allow it to shift the funds to the Pakistani F-16 programme.
Lockheed payment: Over the summer, the Bush administration made a payment "in the $100 million range" to F-16 manufactures Lockheed Martin Corp after it became clear the firm would otherwise fire workers involved in the project, he said. The next payment is due in October and the administration is working with Congress to try to resolve the issue by the end of this month, Boucher said. "We don't want to go ahead without some kind of understanding on the part of Congress."
A Congressional aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said appropriating subcommittees in Congress were entitled to request a 'hold' on re-programming funds and this had been done on the F-16 upgrades. However, he said this was not legally binding. It was 'atypical' for a government agency to go ahead with re-directing money over the objections of the chair of the relevant committees in Congress, the aide said.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Nothin Pakland, you Get Nothing exceptin a bullet in the head.
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
09/17/2008 1:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Bush administration expects an uphill battle in Congress for permission to use counterterrorism funds to upgrade Pakistan's F-16 fighters
#3
The F-16 upgrade was badly needed, he said, and would give Pakistan a more effective counterterrorism tool
What kind of bullshit is this? They're just stealing money from a good program in order to put it in the pockets of defense contractors. Wonderful, now we have fewer funds to fight terrorism. Thanks, zoomies!@
#4
I was told that helicopters are much better than F16s for counterinsurgency, unless there is a good reason (like high altitude in some zones of the Taliban territory) why is Pakistan getting such fine fighters?
#5
Why not throw in a few nuclear weapons while they are at it. You never know, they might have loaned what they have to their friends, Al Qaeda. Can't have India thinking they are not still big dicks, and besides a new round of jizya must be about due.
#6
I am all for cutting off all aid to Pakistan. All of it, military, USAID, any other funding they are gettnig for ANY reason. It is insanity to arm and fund an enemy state, which is what I now believe Pakistan has become.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
09/17/2008 7:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
What kind of bullshit is this?
The kind that keeps the supply lines to Afghanistan open. Until we get out of Afghanistan, we are going to pay whatever tribute tolls Pakistan demands for use of its lines of communication. Grin and bear it.
#9
I'm afraid NS is right. However, if Pakland starts firing on our guys when we go after terrorists on a regular basis, expect this deal to go south. If Pakland starts falling apart, expect seizure of a supply corridor by the US.
#11
We're not cutting off aid to the Paks so long as our principal supply line to Afghanistan runs through the Khyber Pass. Think, people.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/17/2008 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Not unless we want to occupy that supply route. Its a hell of a big step. But its also a cut right through the middle of the bad guys areas, so on the bright side, the supplies only need to go part way.
#13
I'll bet the war games on this are fun. It's hard to see us doing that without getting manpower assistance from, say, India. It's hard to see that happening without this devolving into a religious war with India caught in a two front war. At least they'd have the internal lines of communication. But it would still not be fun.
Obama would be stupid enough to get us into something like that. I prefer legallizing drugs, declaring victory in A-stan, and withdrawing. No matter what, it won't be pretty.
#15
Basically, we would have to occupy 1/3 of Pakistan. Even if we tried to use India as a port supply route, no road runs through the mountains to Afghanistan that we could use. We would have to take the Northern portion of Pakland to make it work.
Basically, there are no real good options unless we want to move the troops from Iraq to Pakistan and engage in another 10 years of nation building.
The Taliban have agreed to abide by a peace agreement with the Ahmedzai Wazir tribes in South Waziristan, and to defer attacks on the government forces in retaliation for US drone attacks against suspected Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban, a tribal source said on Tuesday.
"There have been successful talks with senior Taliban leaders and we have won their backing for the peace agreement until the end of Ramazan," a tribal elder told Daily Times by phone from Wana, the headquarters of South Waziristan.
He said a jirga of Ahmedzai Wazir elders had met the Taliban leaders in Wana on Monday. The Wazirs had made the peace agreement in March 2007 after the ouster of Uzbek militants from Wana.
Revenge: "We have told the Taliban that Pakistan can do little to stop drone attacks and they should take revenge from the US if they wish so and not from the Pakistani forces," the tribesman said.
"It was decided in the meeting that the Taliban will take no action against the army at least until the end of Ramazan. We will meet again after Ramazan to discuss the situation as the Ahmedzai Wazirs do not want peace to be disturbed," the Wazir elder said.
A grand jirga of the Ahmedzai Wazirs will meet in Wana today (Wednesday) to take up the issue of continued drone attacks.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
#1
The Ahmedzai Wazir tribes wanna Peace Deal but they ain't gonna get one.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/17/2008 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
(PTI) Pakistan and Afghanistan must lead efforts to combat extremism along their restive border, President Asif Ali Zardari and British Premier Gordon Brown said here today while side-stepping the issue of the US missile attacks in the volatile region. "It was for the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan to lead the efforts to combat this extremism, with the support of the international community," the two leaders said in a joint statement after their meeting at the 10, Downing Street.
However, they refrained from mentioning the controversial cross-border raids on the Pakistani soil by the US-led forces in Afghanistan which have led to tension between Islamabad and Washington.
During their over two-hour talks, Brown and Zardari agreed that the UK and Pakistan had a shared agenda in tackling violent extremism in both countries.
"They noted that there was a particularly acute problem with extremism emanating from the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region. This had an impact on Pakistan as much as anywhere else, but was also impacting on UK forces in Afghanistan," the statement said.
Brown and Zardari noted that it was the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan who suffered most directly from such extremism. They also agreed that a stable and strong democracy in Pakistan would play an important role in promoting peace in the region.
The Prime Minister and President welcomed the on-going collaboration between the UK and Pakistani governments to tackle violent extremism and radicalisation. They agreed to enhance this cooperation in support of a comprehensive approach by the government of Pakistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
#1
I'll feel a lot better about the possible outcomes there if I see more focus on the drug trade. Boom booms take lots of money. Drugs are the only internal source for that kind of dough. Foreign oil profits is the other main source. Much more pressure needs to be applied on those two sources for things to improve. Then, like in Iraq, turn the population against the extremists by giving them some stability and opportunity to prosper. Up to now, our patchwork efforts pretty well guarentee a perpetual conflict.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/17/2008 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
(PTI) Amid the growing Pak-US rift over cross-border raids from Afghanistan, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari today sought British Premier Gordon Brown's help in easing the situation by prevailing over Washington. Zardari, who is on a private visit to the UK for his daughter Bakhtawar's University admission, was received at 10, Downing Street by the British Prime Minister.
During the meeting between the two leaders, Zardari appealed to Brown for help in persuading President George W Bush that continuing attacks into Pakistan by the US-led forces from Afghanistan would only inflame the situation.
Zardari would visit New York later this month to attend the UN General Assembly, where he is expected to call for new thinking on Afghanistan and an international conference on the terrorism.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
Tribal elders, religious scholars and influential people from Khyber Agency have warned of blocking logistic supplies for United States and NATO troops stationed in Afghanistan if they continued attacking villages in the tribal belt. "Only civilians are being killed and maimed in unwarranted attacks from across the border while those wanted to the US have stayed unscathed so far," said elders from the Kooki Khel tribe of the agency connecting Peshawar with Afghanistan.
Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, tribal elders Malik Israrullah, Taj Mahal advocate, Malik Juma Gul and Haji Barak praised the government's stance after the recent US airstrikes in the Tribal Areas. They said they were encouraged by the army chief's statement that the country's sovereignty would be protected at all cost.
The Kooki Khel tribe inhabits Jamrud and parts of Landi Kotal sub-division of Khyber Agency. Most food and other logistic supplies destined for the US and NATO bases in Afghanistan are transported through this mountainous route leading from Peshawar to Torkham. The tribesmen did not give a specific deadline for the blockade of the route. "We shall look towards the government before setting a deadline," said Israrullah.
About their earlier demand of army withdrawal from the Tribal Areas, Haji Barak said the situation had changed with the arrival of an elected government. Taj Mahal advocate said the elders would make the Tribal Areas a graveyard of American troops if the US forces attacked Pakistani territories.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
#1
So what does the new Pak government do? If they back the tribesmen they risk war with us and almost certainly lose power internally. If they side with us, they'll need to help protect supply routes. This brings the Khyber maniacs directly down on their heads. What to do? Either course threanens their hold on power. Maybe they could use an Obama strategy and just vote present.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/17/2008 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
Syria named its first ambassador to Iraq since the 1980s on Tuesday, two years after the two countries restored diplomatic ties, according to the state-run news agency. SANA said Nawaf Fares, a ruling party apparatchik, took the oath as ambassador to Baghdad in front of President Bashar al-Assad.
Iraq has not yet named an ambassador to Damascus. Syria and Iraq restored diplomatic relations in November 2006, ending a 24-year break that followed charges by the Damascus government that Iraq incited riots in Syria in 1982 by members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood. But relations between Syria and neighboring Iraq remain tense, with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government accusing Syria of allowing anti-U.S rebels to infiltrate the borders.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
General Ray Odierno took command of U.S.-led forces in Iraq on Tuesday, faced with the challenge of ensuring security gains do not unravel at a time when American troop levels are being reduced.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
Thousands of Hamas members voted in a secret internal ballot in the Gaza Strip that re-elected the Islamist group's most prominent leaders to its highest bodies and signaled no change in policy. "The election showed the wonderful face of democracy within Hamas. It was carried out smoothly," a Hamas official said about last month's vote, citing security considerations for the decision to keep it secret.
Officials in the group said some veteran leaders had lost seats on the Shura Council to younger candidates but senior figures Ismail Haniyeh, Mahmoud al-Zahar and Saeed Seyam were re-elected to the policy-setting body and to the politburo. The three are Hamas's top leaders in the Gaza Strip, territory the movement seized in fighting against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah forces in June 2007.
Several members of Hamas's armed wing, the Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, were elected to the politburo, which executes policy and strategy decided by the Shura Council.
In Hamas, candidates do not actively seek nomination but their names are put forward by activists or mosques in their hometowns. Hamas last held an internal ballot in 2006 before it won a Palestinian parliamentary election that year in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
The Hamas official said the group's priorities remained an end to divisions with Fatah and a continuation of "resistance" against Israel, which tightened a blockade of the Gaza Strip after the 2007 takeover of the territory. Despite its declared policy of continuing to fight Israel, Hamas agreed to a ceasefire along the Gaza border in June and has said it would accept a Palestinian state in lands captured by Israeli forces in a war in return for a long-term truce.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
But I thought elections were not Islamic? Surely Allah will point out His preferred leaders, if only they ask properly, which I believe is traditionally done by survival of the best at assassin's knives and poisons.
The family of abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit on Tuesday blasted the transfer of money to Gaza by Israel as tantamount to the funding of terror.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
(AKI) - A former general with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, now military advisor to Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has announced that the Revolutionary Guards have been tasked with patrolling the Persian Gulf and protecting ports in the south of the country.
The armed forces, who were until now involved in the defence of the country's maritime borders, have been removed and the navy is only been deployed on the northern maritime boundary of the Caspian Sea. The decision was taken after news that other foreign navies, particularly the US Navy, was headed towards the Persian Gulf.
"The US fleet is afraid of the fast ships of the Revolutionary Guards and their capacity for immediate reactions to every violation in our national waters," said Rahim Safavi.
In the past 12 months, the Revolutionary Guards' ships have come close to US ships in international waters several times and on more than one occasion they narrowly avoided an accident at the last minute.
Rahim Safavi has also announced that the Revolutionary Guards' missiles cover the entire region of the Persian Gulf. "No vessel can navigate this area without coming in sight of our missiles," he said.
In June, the leader of the Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jaafari, had threatened the closure of the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the world's oil passes, if Iran was attacked.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: IRGC
#1
They probably aren't aware that "seeing" and "hitting" aren't the same thing.
#2
Iran's Army is repor in charge of the CASPIAN SEA + GULF OF OMAN, which undoubtedly gives Russia peace of mind???
ION WAFF > PENTAGON PROPOSES SALE OF THAAD [US GMD] TO UAE, + MOSCOW DEFENSE BRIEF [MDB.ru] > IMPLICATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN-GEORGIAN CONFLICT ON GLOBAL POLITICS.
Interesting - Artic proclaims RUSSIA is a WORLD POWER AND STATE WID REGIONAL-LOCAL INTERESTS, wid primary NATIONALIST-LOCALIST RANKED/PRIORITIZED FOCII in ITSELF EURO and EURASIA AS PERTINENT TO ITS RUSS-CENTERED AGENDUMS, whereas the USA IS A MASSIVE SUPERPOWER [hyperpower] + TRULY GLOBAL = EXTRA-WORLDLY/DIMENSIONAL POWER WHOM CAN'T AFFORD TO CONSIDER LOCAL ONLY INTERESTS OUTSIDE OF OTHER.
* IMO MORE SUPPORT FOR MY CONTENTION THAT THE RUSSO-GEORGIAN CONFLICT > MORE COVERT EMPLACEMENT OF "US-NATO/EU IN ASIA", NOTSOMUCH
"RUSSIA VERSUS US-NATO/EU"!?
ION GUARDIAN.UK > PAKISTANI TRIBAL CHIEFS THREATEN TO JOIN TALEBAN [unless USA ceases attacks inside Pakistan]. Chiefs are believed to represent approxi 500,000 locals, + also threaten to merge/join AFGHAN MILITANTS IN JOINT MILOPS AGZ USA.
#3
See also MEDVEDEV: AN ATTACK ON IRAN WILL ENDANGER THE ENTIRE WORLD. IMO Medvey likely means NUCLEAR MILITANCY-TERRORISM, and NOT necessarily ISLAMIST???
#4
Pappy, if you're reading this, how difficult would it be to sink everything Iranian at the opening of hostilities? Provided the US gets the choice of when, not Iran.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/17/2008 1:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Who says we have to do it by ourselves? Shouldn't the EUropeons be more worried about this? Since they are 10X more affected by energy disruptions than us? What about China? Not a peep out of them. Australia will help with the heavy lifting, that's their nature, to do their share. But the rest of the world seems like a bunch of worthless deadasses on this.
#6
Wouldn't it be a hoot, if one of those aircraft carriers happened to have on board about a hundred small, fast boats, each of which equipped with weaponry like ma deuce, with ball and incendiary?
With a 2000m max effective range, it would be like a small boat version of the Marianas Turkey Shoot.
#7
Interpretation: Regular Iranian armed forces, particularly the navy, aren't trusted by the regime to engage in agressive actions against US/allied forces.
how difficult would it be to sink everything Iranian at the opening of hostilities? Provided the US gets the choice of when, not Iran.
Everything? Not likely. What could be hit are missile emplacements, support facilities, harbors, bases, 'major' vessels, etc.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/17/2008 12:09 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The pros don't look at it as 'strutting talk', Richard. If the Iranian govt is putting the fanatics in place and removing the regulars, that makes things more unstable.
#11
As for "adjustments", I think the best thing the US could do would be to put Apache Longbow helis on all Navy ships - anywhere from one to 30 each, whatever they can support. The Apache chain gun would turn anyone in a small boat to hamburger, and attract every shark in the Indian Ocean. Anything smaller than a Frigate would be dead on sight, and anything larger would be taken out by anti-ship missiles from the cruisers and destroyers protecting the carriers.
What would REALLY be neat is to be able to fly off and land a squadron of A-10s from a carrier, but that's just wishful thinking...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/17/2008 21:58 Comments ||
Top||
Lebanon's rival factions wrapped up the first session of their national reconciliation talks on Tuesday, held to resolve lingering disputes, but agreed to meet again on November 5, 2008, for a second round of the talks.
Leaders of 14 political factions met at the presidential palace for the talks headed by President Michel Suleiman that lasted for three hours before they were adjourned until Nov. 5. "Agreeing to dialogue in and of itself means that all subjects are open to discussion," said Suleiman, who chaired the talks. "The only thing banned here is failure or a reaching a dead-end."
A statement from Suleiman's office released after a three-hour meeting said the president would mediate bilateral talks in the meantime to "consolidate the reconciliation"
Disarming Hezbollah
The participants agreed to "launch talks on a national defense strategy... to reach a shared vision on this strategy," the statement said. The main focus of the dialogue is on forging a defense strategy for Lebanon but there is widespread skepticism that an agreement can be reached given deep-seated divisions over Hezbollah's arsenal.
The Shiite Muslim group, considered a terrorist organization by the United States, has refused to disarm arguing that its weapons and guerrilla army are essential to defend the country against neighboring Israel.
However members of the Western-backed majority in parliament argue that Hezbollah's weapons undermine the authority of the state which should be the sole decision-maker on matters of defense.
Hezbollah's arsenal became an even more sensitive topic after it staged a spectacular takeover of downtown Beirut in May that crippled neighboring businesses in an explosion of sectarian violence that left 65 people dead and raised fears of a return to the dark days of the 1975-1990 civil war. "All Lebanese are hoping that the dialogue will be successful but a real solution will only be found when Hezbollah stops using its weapons to serve regional interests and stops imposing its hegemony by force on the local scene," said an editorial in An-Nahar newspaper, which is close to the anti-Syrian ruling coalition in parliament.
Newspapers close to the rival camp backed by Syria and Iran said those taking part in the dialogue face an arduous task given their differences. "The various political camps believe the discussions on the national defense strategy will get bogged down into futile debate and no one will see any results for a long time," the As-Safir newspaper said.
The independent Al-Anwar said the closed-door talks were taking place "in a minefield called Lebanon, with the mines produced locally and abroad."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
The destruction of a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor last year was the result of an intelligence collaboration that included a "foreign partner" who first identified the facility's purpose, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden said on Tuesday.
The reactor at the desert outpost of Al-Kibar was flattened in an air strike on September 6, 2007 that senior U.S. intelligence officials have said was carried out by Israel on its own initiative. "Our foreign partnerships ... were critical to the final outcome," Hayden said in a speech for delivery to the World Affairs Council of Los Angeles.
A U.S. intelligence official declined to specify the partner Hayden referred to or to say whether it was Israel. He said there have been no signs that Syria was trying to replace the destroyed reactor.
Israel has never given an account of the strike or formally confirmed that it took place and some Israeli officials have quietly voiced dismay at U.S. disclosures about the strike.
"We were able last year to spoil a big secret, a project that could have provided Syria with plutonium for nuclear weapons," Hayden said. Hayden said a report from the unnamed foreign partner first identified the facility as a reactor similar to one in North Korea, although U.S. intelligence had identified it as suspicious.
"When pipes for a massive cooling system were laid out to the Euphrates River in the spring of 2007, there would have been little doubt this was a nuclear reactor," Hayden said. "We would have known it was North Korean, too, given the quantity and variety of intelligence reports on nuclear ties between Pyongyang and Damascus."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#7
Yes, it's nice to know some people are taking Israel's best interests at heart, as the current leadership and I'd guess a sizeable part of the israeli people seem bent on national suicide. So, yes, it's nice to have the USA covering Israel's back, and I think you're very wrong in blaming the wrong direction your country is headed to onto the USA and its influence on you. Just like the "eurocentered" french nationalists and the rabid antiamericans of all stripe, it's a scapegoat; your (and our) troubles are all SELF-CREATED. You should be more self-critical, and lay off the snark against the yanks a bit, too.
#9
Thanks, A5089. Gromgoru does blame the U.S. for a lot of Israel's problems that Israel has brought on itself, usually by failing to act decisively.
It's not America's fault that Israel didn't take out Hezb when it had the chance. We kept the UN off their necks for six weeks while they dithered and blew a God-given chance to eliminate those scum. I will be deeply saddened if Israel succumbs to those 7th Century morons attacking it but I'll know exactly where the blame lies and it won't be with the U.S.
Syria says it 'will stand with Iran' amid speculations that Damascus may cut ties with Iran as it is engaged in indirect talks with Israel. Syria will stand with Iran on all the major strategic issues," President Bashar al-Assad said in an interview with Syria's Channel 10 broadcast on Tuesday.
"Only one situation would distance Syria from Iran, and that is if Tehran sided with Israel, and if America sided with the Arabs," the Jerusalem Post quoted the Syrian president as saying.
Assad also downplayed the recent indirect talks between Israel and Syria, insisting that the term "negotiations" is just too strong for such talks. "What's happening today is not negotiation, but they are called 'negotiations' in the media," the Syrian president told the interviewer.
Assad's coments come as Israel has recently stepped up efforts to persuade Damascus to cut its ties with Iran. Recently, Israel's Ambassador to the US, Sallai Meridor, declared that the main reason that his government began indirect talks with Syria earlier this year was to "bring about a strategic repositioning" in the region by breaking up Damascus' alliance with Iran.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
Is this one of those before-we-switch-sides-we-make-an-ademant-denial denials? I thought so.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/17/2008 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
'Syria will stand with Iran'
Then Syria will fall with Iran.
The UN nuclear watchdog showed documents and photographs on Tuesday suggesting Iran secretly tried to modify a missile cone to fit a nuclear bomb, diplomats said, and Tehran again dismissed the findings as forged.
Iran said an International Atomic Energy Agency inquiry into its nuclear activity was at a dead-end because the IAEA was demanding Tehran reveal conventional military secrets without nuclear dimensions. Iran has denied seeking atom bombs.
The Vienna-based UN watchdog said in a report on Monday that Iranian stonewalling had brought an agency inquiry into whether Tehran had covertly researched ways to make a nuclear bomb to a standstill.
Britain has accused Iran of showing contempt for the UN watchdog and, with the United States and France, vowed to seek harsher sanctions on Tehran over its defiance of UN demands for full disclosure and a suspension of uranium enrichment.
The IAEA wants Iran to clarify intelligence material pointing to links between Iranian projects to process uranium, test high explosives and modify a Shahab-3 missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
The IAEA is going to keep screwing around until a huge boom happens, then they'll CYA as hard as they can.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/17/2008 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
Iran's envoy to the IAEA urges the US to concede the 'realities' of Iran's nuclear program and respect Tehran's cooperation with the UN nuclear body. "The US and Western countries have to cope with new realities: that Iran is the master of nuclear enrichment technology and at the same time Iran is cooperating with the agency," Ali-Asghar Soltaniyeh told Press TV in a live program aired on Tuesday.
The Vienna-based diplomat expressed dismay over the UN Security Council sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program. "We have disappointed the UN Security Council sanctions but we have not taken revenge from the agency by withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)."
Soltaniyeh said Iran's transparent cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and its readiness for negotiations about its nuclear program without any precondition has "disarmed the US administration".
"Iran has spared no effort to prove to the world" that it is "determined to sit at the negotiations table without any precondition."
He said currently there are negotiations between Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. He said that the US officials will further isolate themselves if they refuse to accept Iran's nuclear realities.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
WORLD FORUM OP-EDS [paraph]> RUSSIAN MEDIA: WILL CHINA HELP RUSSIA RESIST THE USA IN RUSSIA'S FAR EAST. Russia desires Chinese assistance in econ developing its RFE, as it desires to use same = NORTH PACIFIC-ASIA + ASIA-PACIFIC TO VALIDATE ITS WORLD POWER STATUS AGZ US-ALLIES; + WHOM IS CAUING INSTABILITY AND CHAOS ALONG CHINA'S BORDERS IN CENTRAL ASIA. Iff necessary, CHINA must be willing to use MILITARY FORCE to intervene in KAZAKHISTAN, TURKIMENISTAN, etc. to ensure National and Econ Stability.; + RETIRED INDIAN GENERAL: INDIA IN CASE OF SINO-INDIAN WAR MUST USE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, NUCLEAR SUBMARINES TO DENY STRAITS OF MALACCAS TO CHINA AND CUT OFF CHINA'S OIL-FUELS SUPPLIES. The Malaccas is a strategic trade route and thus a debilitating strstegic weakness for China, and a likely realistic "hotspot" for milpol conflict bwtn India and China, the latter of which recognizes the threat and is covertly trying to remedy its situation by building alternative, dual-use major ports in Gwadar, Pakistan and Myanmar, etc. plus overland Asian pipeline networks, in an ALLEGED "SLOW SIEGE OF INDIA"; + ANALYSTS: SEVERE DISCONTENT IS SPREADING IN NORTH KOREA. KIM SLOWLY LOSING LOYALTY OF NORTH KOREAN MILITARY DUE TO LONG-STANDING SEVERE FOOD CRISES + US, SOUTH KOREA PREPARING TO ENTER NORTH KOREA AS PER ITS CONCEPT PLAN 5029.
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.
Tribal elders, religious scholars and influential people from Khyber Agency have warned of blocking logistic supplies for United States and NATO troops stationed in Afghanistan if they continued attacking villages in the tribal belt. "Only civilians are being killed and maimed in unwarranted attacks from across the border while those wanted to the US have stayed unscathed so far," said elders from the Kooki Khel tribe of the agency connecting Peshawar with Afghanistan.
