#1
SUBjectively spekaing, the "ASIAN/ASIAN-PACIFIC CENTURY" is as much for RADICAL ISLAM as for anyone else. Pragmatically, the next best thing to dev one's own Nukes IS TO FORCIBLY TAKE OVER SOMEONE ELSE'S NUKES - RUSSIA'S, CHINA'S, INDIA'S, OTHER [ includ AFRICA], OR LARGE PARTS THEREFROM.
Also, WOT > INTER-ISLAM/ISLAMIST IDEO, GEOPOL WAR = COMPETITION BTWN HISTORICAL CENTRES = CAPITALS OF ISLAMIC THOUGHT
SAUDI vs. EGYPT vs.ISTANBUL vs. TEHRAN [Persian] vs. ANKARA vs ......................@, i.e. WHOSE -ISMS WILL DOMINATE THE FUTURE EURASIAN , GLOBAL NUCLEAR CALIPHATE???
[Al Arabiya Latest] Afghan President Hamid Karzai could imperil the future stability of his country and become an international pariah unless he curbs his outspoken criticism of Western backers, observers say.
Karzai's increasingly strained relationship with the West has deteriorated over a series of outbursts in which he accused foreign powers of orchestrating massive fraud in the election that returned him to power last year.
But after standing by his remarks despite international criticism, analysts, lawmakers and ordinary Afghans believe he is treading a thin line that could even threaten the future of the impoverished and war-torn country.
"I have had a great deal of respect for the president, considered him as a good friend and brother but it is difficult for me to continue my support for him over this," said pro-government lawmaker Shukria Barakzai.
Political analyst Mohammad Younus Fakur added: "The president crossed all lines of diplomacy and Afghanistan's national interests with his recent stance."
Gambling over Afghanistan's fate
The Kabul Weekly newspaper also expressed fears, running a headline: "The president gambles over Afghanistan's fate and the nation will pay the price."
The United States, which shoulders the overwhelming burden of the war to quell an increasingly deadly Taliban insurgency and has tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, led the international backlash over Karzai's remarks.
The White House even hinted that it may withdraw Karzai's invitation for talks with President Barack Obama next month and pointedly refused to call the Afghan leader an ally.
The resignation Wednesday of two top officials at the government-appointed election commission that oversaw the August presidential vote and its chaotic aftermath may go some way to alleviating international concern.
One Western diplomat in Kabul described the development as "a step in the right direction" towards restoring the independence of the commission before planned parliamentary elections later this year.
Karzai has already courted criticism for trying to replace with Afghans three foreigners who sat on the U.N.-backed Election Complaints Commission (ECC) watchdog, ultimately agreeing to allow two non-Afghans on the body.
He has also sought to introduce further electoral amendments, but lawmakers voted down his changes and the upper house of parliament refused to debate the issue, leaving the status of the legislative changes uncertain.
Election fraud
Barakzai, a women's rights activist, and others suggest Karzai has to go further, with funding for this year's elections and vital reconstruction and development projects dependent on good relations with foreign governments.
Parties also need to see eye-to-eye with a major peace "jirga" or traditional tribal meeting in May, a diplomatic conference and a coalition push against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan planned in the coming months.
"He (Karzai) could remain the legitimate president but a change of his tone and speech is must," Barikzai said.
Some observers assessed that Karzai's comments were calculated to win him grassroots support among ordinary Afghans, many of whom see him as a puppet of the West.
Karzai repeated his claims about the election fraud at a meeting with local tribal leaders in the southern city of Kandahar and to lawmakers in a private meeting at the weekend.
But railing against Western "interference" could be a warning that he may turn to neighboring Iran, Russia or other regional powers for support, said political analyst Waheed Mujda.
"It is a dangerous step he has taken," said Mujda.
Mujda and others, though, said that despite Karzai's bluster, which prompted former top U.N. envoy Peter Galbraith to question his "mental stability," the president's hands are tied.
Foreign governments are pressuring him to introduce key anti-corruption and good governance measures, amid longstanding concern about graft and lack of transparency at the heart of government.
"In the long run -- one side, either Karzai or the U.S., will have to compromise. They both have no choice but to work together," Mujda added.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/09/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The fruits of "Smart Diplomacy". Erstwhile allies running to stronger positions.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
04/09/2010 2:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mujda and others, though, said that despite Karzai's bluster, which prompted former top U.N. envoy Peter Galbraith to question his "mental stability," the president's hands are tied.
Ahhhh yes, "he's insane, insane I tell you." Can you recommend specific meds, and a good sanitarium near.... Moscow comrade?
As Sufi orders around the Maghreb prepare for the season's gatherings and celebrations, debate is once more arising about how this current of Islam fits into society.
Embraced or tolerated by most in the Maghreb, Sufism's emphasis on mysticism and moderation evokes strong stances among both followers and detractors.
"[Sufism] is the perfect way to fight fanaticism," one 22-year-old Moroccan, Jaouad Rehmani, told Magharebia.
"By standing apart from all the heated debates, Sufism is the expression of moderate Islam, and it doesn't take a position on political issues," said the student, who became involved in Sufism through a music festival in Fes. "It purifies the soul and allows you to approach God in peace."
But as an antidote for extremism, Sufism has its enemies.
Nowhere is this enmity more evident than in Somalia, whose instability casts a shadow over neighbouring countries. There, members of the al-Shabab movement last month destroyed the graves of two revered sheikhs to frighten off Sufi pilgrims. The practice, documented in a 2008 video aired by Al Jazeera, has continued until today. Sufi groups in Somalia have drawn criticism from extremist groups by working with the government to counter the influence of al-Shabab.
While negative reactions to Sufi reverence for the faith's important figures do not approach the violent extremes visible in Somalia, such sentiments do exist, at varying levels, in the Maghreb.
"Many followers and clerics of Sufi sects in Mauritania ... visit their clerics' graves not seeking a sermon, but as a way of exaltation and blessing", one Mauritanian graduate student in Islamic studies, Sidina Ould Hamahou Allah, told Magharebia. "Imagine! They ask their deceased clerics' help to achieve worldly gains...this is a clear delusion that has no justification in Islam".
The Somali demolitions raise the stakes for Sufis in the Maghreb, who even before those events were concerned with countering extremists' claims and actions.
"The current wager rests on the ability of Sufis to give expression to Islam and present it in a sound manner, and the extent of their contribution to cultural exchanges and renouncing violence, extremism and terrorism," one Algerian sheikh, Belabes Lazhari, said at a March 19th seminar in Algiers.
Declarations like Lazhari's are not alone in the Muslim world; other religious leaders have recently rallied around a fatwa condemning terrorism's worst manifestations, such as suicide bombings. But Sufism's visible differences from some mainstream expressions of Islam at times make it a lightning-rod for extremists' anger.
Part of the reason Sufism draws Islamists' ire -- and maintains its popular appeal -- is its incorporation of many arts and folk traditions. This makes its zawiya, which group Sufi followers around a particular sheikh, suspect in the eyes of Salafist purists. But this suspicion may, in part, be due to confusion about the essence of Sufism.
"There's been a zawiya specialising in folk remedies with herbs, and there are also offshoots of mysticism in the musical arts, calligraphy, poetry, verse and recitation -- these are not called Sufism, but are rather offshoots of Sufism," Dr. Ali Moundji, an Algerian Sufism expert, told Magharebia.
Moundji also rebutted arguments, like those made by al-Shabab, that Sufism has a heretical tendency to encourage the worship of saints like the ones whose tombs the terrorists razed.
"The saints, in contrast with the prophets, are not calling for anyone to believe in them -- this is the difference," said Moundji. "Even with the visions, observations and blessings of the saints, we recognise them out of respect for them, but are not calling for belief in them."
Even in academic circles, however, the role of saints in Sufism is debated.
Sufism contains "embellishment in the readings of the saints and miracles, because many are fabricated, in addition to a misunderstanding of certain things in Islam, such as asceticism", Sedik Marouki, an Algerian professor of fiqh, told Magharebia.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/09/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
"We are living like Africans now ... we are not blacks ... When this was the USSR there were factories, good factories ... there were sports centers ... good schools."
Posted by: john frum ||
04/09/2010 17:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I saw that.
They don't like anybody, do they?
So when do they start bitching that nobody's coming in to clean up the damage for them?
#4
A placard hangs in a prominent spot on the building. Black-painted words, in Russian so that foreigners like me can read them. "Dirty Jews and all those like Maxim Bakiyev have no place in Kyrgyzstan."
One wonders if there has ever been so much as a single Jew in all of Kyrgyzstan ever. Lovely people.
#7
Lest we fergit, NET [old] > AFGHAN, PAK WARS IS AMERICA'S "GAZA"? [Palestine = Palestnians] + ISLAMISTS/MILITANTS ENGAGE IN ARMS TRADE ACROSS SOUTHEAST ASIA.
#8
TW: There has been a jewish community in central Asia until recently. See the Wikipedia entry on Bukharan Jews for more information.
The things Rantburgers know and share! From the Snowy Thing's link:
Most Bukharan Jews lived in the Emirate of Bukhara (currently Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), while a small number lived in Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and some other parts of the former Soviet Union. In the Emirate of Bukhara, the largest concentrations were in Tashkent, Samarkand, Bukhara, and Khokand. In Tajikistan, they similarly were mainly concentrated in the capital, Dushanbe.
Prior to the Partition of India, some Bukharan Jews could be found among the Afghan population of Peshawar, a city in what is now Pakistan. After partition and the creation of Israel, nearly all of these Jews left for Israel and other countries. One synagogue still exists in Peshawar, and there are two main synagogues and several Jewish cemeteries that were annexed by local Muslims and still function in the Pakistani port city Karachi.
I no longer need wonder. The last two words of my previous post still hold, though.
#2
WMF > POOR STANDARDS OF LIVING, LACK OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THE REAL CAUSE OF THE RIOTS, COUP IN SCO-MEMBER STATE KYRGYZSTAN: CHINA, SCO SHOULD SEND TROOPS TO ENFORCE PUBLIC SAFETY, STABILIZE GOVT.
and
SAME > KYRGYZSTAN IS RUSSIA AND CHINA'S "TAIWAN" IN CENTRAL ASIA WHERE US MILITARY FORCES CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE PERMANENTLY ESTABLISHED [irregardless of any Islamist, Other Ethnic nationlaist threat].
versus
PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUMS > NEW KYRGYZSTAN RULERS THANK RUSSIA, AIM TO SHUT DOWN US AIRBASE [Manas AB], + KYRGYZSTAN RIOTS THREATEN AFGHAN WAR'S PREMIER AIR HUB, + US RELIES ON KEY AIR BASE IN KYRGYZSTAN.
Indirectly, the success of the Kyrgyztsan rioters show once again that the "WINNING OF HEARTS-N-MINDS" IN WAR OR PEACE, IS JUST AS IMPORTANT, IFF NOT MORESO, AS PROPER APPLICATION OF OVERWHELMING MILITARY FORCE.
JOBS, ECON DEV, HOPE FOR THE FUTURE, A BETTER WAY.......@ETC., than just BRUTE FORCE, aka "WINNING THE PEACE".
Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.
Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective.
Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it."
Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)
However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT-noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.
This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections. Charles, Charles... I love your work.
The naivete is stunning. Similarly the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new nuclear warheads, indeed, to permit no replacement of aging nuclear components without the authorization of the president himself. This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes. Just like Carter's example of banning breeder reactors to reduce proliferation stopped France from using them. The type we use as a result just make 50 times more low-level waste.
On the contrary. The last quarter-century - the time of greatest superpower nuclear arms reduction - is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons (and India and Pakistan became declared nuclear powers).
It gets worse. The administration's Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to "continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks." The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use.
This is deeply worrying to many small nations that for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture - and for them it's not posture, but existential protection - what are they to think?
Fend for yourself. Get yourself your own WMDs. Go nuclear if you have to. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf? Maybe we can sell components at a profit, to improve our balance of payments.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/09/2010 06:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Krauthammer says it better than I can: This is quite insane. Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy.
#2
I was watching Charlie Rose last night and he had 3 so-called historians on w/him - Doris Kearns Goodwin, Doug Brinkley, and some other dude. Basically all of them gushing over how Obama did such a great job getting health care passed. Talk about being in bizarro land. Not one mention of the unconstitutional parts of the bill. No mention of the back room deals. Trying to compare him to FDR - who the Goodwin seems to idolize. Yet, they all misrepresented what the tea party movement is really about. Scary. My disgust for baby boomer soft-science academians soars.
#3
AND THE NUCLEAR DOMINO KEEPS A'ROLLING ALONG > NORTH KOREA is this AM vowing to build more Nucbpombs in retaliation for Obama's "hostile" polices + attiude agz it.
WHICH IN TURN INDIR STRONGLY INFERS THAT WORLD MILITANT GROUPS INCLUD BUT NOT LIMITED TO RADICAL ISLAM WILL GET THEIR NUCTECHS, OTHER ADVANCED WMDS = NBC-CBRN(E).
PRO-US-VS-ANTI-US OWG-NWO > AMERICA = AMERIKA, OWG MIGHTY USSA = OWG WEAK USRoA SSR, WIL FIND OUT CIRCA 2012 OR SHORTLY AFTER.
Again, ISLAMIST IRAN + MILTERR GROUPSCAN'T WAIT UNTIL YEAR 2020 [+/-] FOR THE US TO DEPLOY EFFECTIVE GMD-TMD SYSTEMS, for such means that RADIC ISLAM [+ other MILTERRS] will need MEANS-OTHER-THAN-WAR/VIOL JIHAD [LOcal, Universal] TO VALIDATE + IMPOSE THIER BRAND OF ISLAM, SHARIA, "GLOBALISM", + GOVT-SOCIETY ETHOS-PATHOS, ETC.
#4
I'm not sure that nuclear deterrence is really working out so well.. We didn't drop The Bomb in Korea, or Viet Nam, or the Balkans. We didn't drop any nukes on Baghdad or on any friken' cave in Af-figgen-ganistan did we? Heck we already have more nukes to destroy the world over 5-6 times anyway. Nukes have for decades been overkill that needs to be re-assessed IMO
Posted by: Mr. Bill ||
04/09/2010 22:43 Comments ||
Top||
#1
The stool pigeon might be Uri Blau who is a reporter for an Israeli (left leaning) newspaper, the Haaretz. Anat Kam, who was with the IDF as late as 2007 leaked info to the Blau. Ms. Kam has been indicted.
However, this is just a guess.
Posted by: lord garth ||
04/09/2010 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
We are in the midst of battles taking place on different levels; and there are clashes between followers of different religions, and clashes between followers of the same religion. However looking into the details of such disputes one realizes that clashes are even taking place between followers of the same sect and even members of the same family. Although such conflict this represents defective behavior, there has been no lasting solution to this. Therefore despite the numerous conferences and proposals put forward to resolve this, no decisive laws have been enacted, and it seems that it will be a long time until we can reach a mutual understanding or accept a collective defeat [on this issue].
Thirty years ago the Iranians -- at the height of the glory of their Islamic Revolution -- objected to Salman Rushdie's novel [The Satanic Verses] thereby initiating a clash of civilizations. Everybody in Europe at the time, from writers to publishers to readers, were accustomed to freedom of expression in their cultural domain, and this even included freedom of expression against the Christian church. Those who objected to something were only entitled to stage demonstrations outside the theatre or publishing house in question, or to write letters protecting this. Anybody who is dissatisfied can only merely refrain from seeing or purchasing the work of art in question and encouraging the others to do the same.
However in the Islamic world, the experience and history is completely different. Europe experienced more than three centuries of ideological conflict over Galileo's telescope, Darwin's apple,
Newton's apple, actually, but the writer grew up in a different culture so it isn't fair to expect him to know such little details.
and before this Martin Luther's position against the deification of the Church. It is thanks to Martin Luther's position that freedom of expression today has become holy [in Europe] and the principle of coexistence between followers of different schools of thought has been implemented. Therefore the most one could do to criticize a particular work of art was to respond in kind, i.e. to publish a book or write an article refuting and objecting to the views of others. Muslims are not part of the European geography and history, and we have yet to reach the same stage as the West in this regard. As a result of this, the Arab behavior is condemned by the Europeans, while the Western behavior seems to be rude and nasty to Muslims. As a result of this, the struggle between the two sides is intensifying via UN committees and open conferences with regards to the limits and boundaries of freedom of expression.
As I mentioned in the introduction, the problems with regards to freedom of expression and criticism does not merely exist between two different cultures; one that has been in use since Martin Luther's conflict with the Church, and another that is committed to its traditional values, but that this conflict exists on all levels. The Christians consider the Muslim view of Christ to be blasphemous, while the Jews also consider the mockery and aggression directed towards them in Muslim texts to be something that should be stopped, where we Muslims believe that their mockery of our religion is an outrage, however if there were no such differences there would only be one common religion in the world. The same clashes are taking place between followers of the same religion, as can be seen in the exchange of accusations between the Sunnis and Shiites. If the Shiites had accepted the Sunni version of history with regards to the Prophet's companions, they would not be Shiite but rather Sunnis, and if the Sunnis believed that Ali Bin Abu Taleb should have been the first Caliph following the Prophet's death and that the Caliphate should follow the Prophet's line with regards to succession then they would not be Sunnis but rather Shiites. While if the followers of Al Qaeda abandoned their jihadist principles they would not be followers of Al Qaeda or terrorists. This is how a series of differences continue to spiral out of control, even amongst followers of the same religion, and differences and clashes have emerged [in Islam] over issues such as the niqab and the hijab and the limits of preventing vice. As a result of this, people label each other infidels and issue takfirist fatwas that say that it is permissible to shed each other's blood.
This is a general picture of the conflict between opponents who have failed to impose the necessary limits and boundaries for peaceful coexistence, which does not necessarily mean recognizing or consenting to other people's beliefs. This is a problem that is far too large for the UN to resolve, or for it to be resolved by putting an end to armed extremist groups or fundamentalists here or there; rather this is a huge ideological problem.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/09/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Darwin's Apple? It's for certain this person is not educated in physics.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/09/2010 18:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Darwin's Apple? It's for certain this person is not educated in physics."
FTFY, Deacon.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/09/2010 20:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Darwin's Apple" does hold some promise as a sarcastic response, however. "Al Gore had a flash of insight, like when Darwin was hit on the head with an apple. Except Al Gore's apple was solid brass, and hit him really hard."
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Religious scholars rejected comments made by Ayatollah Hashem Boushahri, the Imam of Friday Prayers in the city of Qom and a member of the Iranian Assembly of Experts, in which he accused Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb of creating an atmosphere of tension following his statements rejecting the exportation of the Shiite sect in Sunni societies, and the exportation of the Sunni sect in Shiite societies.
In Western Europe, that principle was called Cuius regio, eius religio ("Whose realm, his religion"), the principle of the Treaty of Augsberg which ended the Catholic-Lutheran wars riving the Holy Roman Empire in 1555. The Thirty Years War was the result.
Sheikh Mahmoud Ashour, former assistant dean of Al-Azhar and Chairman of the of the Committee on Dialogue among Islamic Schools of Thought said that Dr. al-Tayeb's recent statement to the media about his rejection of Shiite expansion in Sunni societies, as well as his rejection of Sunni expansion in Shiite societies, represents the cornerstone of rapprochement between the Sunnis and Shiites.
Sheikh Ashour added "Our motto at the Committee on Dialogue among Islamic Schools of Thought is to reject calls for the Shiification of Sunnis or the Sunnification of the Shiites or the merging of religious schools of thought into one school of thought. Instead, there are common denominators which we operate under, particularly as we all believe that 'there is no God but Allah' and every school of thought has its own doctrine."
Sheikh Ashour also warned of the presence of hidden figures that want to tamper with Muslim unity and establish sectarian and factional clashes across the Islamic world.
For his part, Shiite Sheikh Abdullah al-Qimi, secretary of the Cairo-based Dar al-Taqreeb [Centre for the Rapprochement of Islamic Sects] said that Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb is well known for his strong positions that support rapprochement between Islamic schools of though, and has noting to do with his welcome of Shiite students to study at Al-Azhar University.
Al Qimi added that al-Tayeb's statements rejecting the exportation of the Shiite sect in Sunni societies and vice versa is natural, and does not hinder rapprochement between sects but rather supports and encourages this. He said "we in the Dar al-Taqreeb support the proposal of the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar which calls for rationality and which also distance Islamic societies from falling into the trap of temptation and sectarian differences."
As for Dr. Mohamed al-Desouki, a member of the Cairo based Dar al-Taqreeb and a member of the Egyptian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs criticized the statements made by Ayatollah Hashem Boushahri in which he accused the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar of creating a tense atmosphere. Dr. al-Desouki said that Boushahri had failed to understand al-Tayeb's words, and that the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar had publicly confirmed that Al-Azhar is ready to receive Shiite students to study juristic studies at the Al-Azhar University, but it does not allow them to promote and export the Shiite sect in Sunni societies, and this is in support of Islamic unity.
Dr. al-Desouki said that the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar's statement on this issue was clear and not a source of dissension, and that this is opposite to the calls of those who support the exportation of the Shiite sect in Sunni societies, which is something that represents an obstacle to rapprochement between Islamic sects. He also said that this is not an issue of exporting sects, as all [Islamic] sects have the same origin, and the problem is between scholars rather than the public, because the public follow the scholars as they do not possess the capability of judging between religious sects themselves.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/09/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it." 
