#3
The problem, Obama, is that you're only ready to lead the lemmings over a financial cliff. Your budgets will give us a $9T National Debt over the next decade, on top of your "stimulus" plan that is already pork-laden, irresponsible and hyper-inflationary.
#5
How about we join them in a hand-grenade-tossing contest? Most are too stupid to pull the pin.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/25/2009 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUMS > OBAMA PLAN PROMISES PAKISTAN THE MOON [e.g. Obama Admin wants US role in CHIN-dev GWADAR = "INTERNATIONAL/FREE" PORT].
Also on PDF > CHINA HIGH SEAS CASTS USA AS ADVERSARY.
US PERT [University/Chinese-Amer] = claims that CHINA DESIRES/SEEKS TO EXPAND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE = MILITARY + GEOPOL OPERATING SPHERES/ARCS OUTWARD TOWARDS GUAM + PHILIPPINES.
HMMMMMM, as warned or inferred times before, NET > FUTURE GUAM = may becom a GEOPOL "NO-MAN'S LAND" = AREA OF CONFLICT/COMPETITION BWTN USA + CHINA. CAN NOW ADD RADICAL ISLAM TO THE EQUATION.
Anchored by its nuclear-powered carrier, the Seventh Fleet protects global trade.
On a gorgeous morning this autumn, at Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, I was expecting a huge popular demonstration, maybe even a riot. The U.S. aircraft carrier George Washington was about to enter Yokosuka's harbor, the base of the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific. Never before had a nuclear-powered vessel been based in Japan. It was a clear demonstration of how the U.S. was reinforcing its presence in this part of the world--a danger zone, with China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan itself, all historical rivals, ranged around it. Japan has a long tradition of pacifist, antinuclear, and anti-American protests, and until now, the only country to have been bombed with nuclear weapons had always opposed hosting nuclear ships.
Yet no riot erupted; in fact, there was no trace of protest. Yokosuka was quiet. The only crowd on hand was on the base: 1,000 Japanese--mostly local dignitaries, politicians, and representatives of the Japanese Navy--joined a group of American officials to attend the majestic and complex maneuver of the George Washington from the high seas to the pier.
Continued on Page 49
#3
Barry's hands are tied. This is simply another failure of diplomacy which he has inherited. He can do nothing about the missle test. The Norks had this in the planning long before Barry took office, remember? (snark off)
#5
Sounds like a good time to sell the Japanese the "Kitty Hawk", and a full complement of carrier aircraft. I think they have enough ships already to form a defensive screen. Just one more step in Japan's growing roll in maintaining peace in East Asia.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/25/2009 17:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
OTOH, WAFF > USA [Navy]:AN UNCERTAIN MARITIME POSTURE PORTENDS FOR AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE. Among other, Article describes the USN as steadily evol towards being a RAPID REACTION FORCE, lean hi-techy and also highly flexible, and no longer organz to fight WW2-STYLE MASSIVE OPEN BATTLES OR CAMPAIGNS.
Also, TOPIX > CHINA'S FLASH OF MUSCLE DURING NAVAL STANDOFF MAY SIGNAL A BROAD NEW PUSH FOR POWER IN ASIA + CHINA'S MILITARY EXPANSION SEES THE USA AS THE [SSSSSSSHHHHHHHH, FUTURE]ENEMY.
#7
I dunno about China's muscle flexing Joe - what was it, a frigate and some fishing trawlers 50+/- miles from port? Sounds more pesky annoyance than otherwise. Now, if they pull a Pueblo, that's a serious escalation well above the forced landing of the recon plane from summer 2001.
Chinese muscle flexing will be if they try and send more than a single naval vessel for some port calls around the Indian Ocean, or better yet, to the African Atlantic coast. That would take some doing. Of course, it would also likely accelerate keel laying for the Indian navy, and speed the negotiations for the Indo-Japanese-Anzac South Pacific/Indian Ocean joint patrol protocols.
#8
ION PAKISTANI DEFENSE FORUM > LET ATTEMPTS HUGE INFILTRATION [across LOC]INTO INDIA: KASHMIR ON RED/FULL ALERT. LET covertly sends 300 MIL-TERRS in support of Peace + Curry-Mania.
Also on PDF > RUSSA [Ivanov]: PAKISTAN MUST BE STABILIZED [read, but SSSSSHHHHHH NOT by Russia].
Seems like just yesterday that voices were saying that the Dow was going to 5 000. United States President Barack Obama's big rescue plan was too small, and internationally coordinated fiscal stimuli were too uncoordinated to be of any use.
Then Citigroup said it had been profitable for the first two months of the year and hallelulah, the market raced upwards. There have been other, small signs that the worst may be in the past, notably the fact this week that new homes under construction in the United States increased for the first time after seven consecutive months of falling.
Federal Bank chairperson Ben Bernanke, taking an uncharacteristically high profile, has also been saying that the recession will end this year and that the economy will begin to recover in 2010. He cautioned that there would be no recovery without first stabilising the financial system. "We're working on it. And I do think we will get it stabilised."
But there is no shortage of analysts who say that stabilisation will be achieved only once housing prices in the United States have returned to their pre-bubble, long-term sustainable average.
These analysts point to a study by Yale economist Robert Shiller, which tracks the inflation-adjusted value of US homes back to 1890. The recent housing boom saw prices increase by 83% since 1987. The meltdown has seen these prices fall by more than 25%, but they still need to fall a further 20% to reach the average price, which this market has sustained since the 1950s.
Another way to think about the prospects of recovery is last week's US wealth data. Americans lost a collective $12.7-trillion last year.
"This is the largest decline in US household asset values ever recorded over a 12-month period," says Stanlib's Kevin Lings.
US household assets were still an impressive $65.7-trillion at the end of last year, he says, although he expects losses since then to be about $2-trillion.
Lings says that US household debt amounted to $14.2-trillion at the end of 2008. This is mostly in home mortgages (74% of total) and consumer credit (18%).
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Citigroup profitable? That was operating profits, which excludes the balance sheet stuff such as the toxic assets.
#5
Americans lost a collective $12.7-trillion last year.
How much of that was stock-market loss, how much a "paper" loss based on changes in the market value of their home? I'm halfway through paying off a 30-year mortgage on a home I bought for $65K. It's currently "valued" at $150K by the city - more than twice what I paid for it. Homes like mine are selling for $135K-$175K here in town. If you state that the change in appraisal value from $65K to $150K increased my net worth by $85K, and now my home is "only" worth $125K now, then you could say I've "lost" $25K. Since I haven't realized either the "gain" or the "loss", it really has no meaning to me. The people really hurt by all this are the folks in their 50's and 60's who invested heavily in stocks and bonds for their retirement. Not only are their holdings worth less, but the cash dividends they'd expected to help them in their retirement years are either missing or greatly reduced. The fact that the US still hasn't undone some of the very laws that got us into this mess doesn't give me a good feeling for the future.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/25/2009 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
For a diplomat, Christopher Hill has ticked off an awful lot of people.
by Stephen F. Hayes
Hayes lays out the case against Chris Hill. In addition to his nasty behavior and his failures in North Korea, Hill pretty cleared lied to a Senate committee. And tried to get Richard Holbrooke to guarantee the safety of Radovan Karadzic, in writing.
There's no reason for Hill to be Ambassador to Iraq. He doesn't get counter-insurgency. He doesn't work well with our military. He annoys other diplomats. He doesn't speak Arabic. In other words, yup, Bambi nominated him.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/25/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There's no reason for Hill to be Ambassador to Iraq.
Steve, that's because you're assuming that Bambi's intent is to act in our nation's best interest and preserve the gains that were finally made in the last 1.5 years of GWB's Administration. But when you realize that his real objective is another helicopters-on-the-embassy-roof moment, it makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
03/25/2009 0:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Both of you are grossly misinformed about Chris Hill. He has worked with the military in the past both in Bosnia and Kosovo and he does understand counter insurgency. Also, previous U.S. ambassadors to Iraq including Negroponte did not speak Arabic. Opposing Chris Hill because you oppose Obama is assine. Hill is more than qualified for this job. He's run three other embassies during his career along with serious high level negoatations in Bosnia, Kosovo and North Korea. Basically people who oppose Chris Hill need to do some research on him before making foolish unfounded criticisms.
#3
Three weeks later, Christopher Hill, a veteran of the Foreign Service, overruled the president. Then the government's chief negotiator on North Korea's nuclear program, now Barack Obama's nominee to serve as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Hill didn't much care what the president wanted. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had given Hill permission to meet face-to-face with the North Koreans but only on the condition that diplomats from China were also in the room. Although the Chinese participated in the early moments of the discussions, they soon left. Hill did not leave with them.
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/25/2009 6:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I don't know, Nathan. You're focusing on Steve's comments, and not the article its linked to.
Lying to Senators and ignoring the expressed wishes of the Secretary of State and POTUS seems pretty damming.
I smell an ego that probably needs a C-5 Galaxy to take it into theatre, which means he operates in what Hill thinks is his best interests and not the country's.
#5
If it was true that Hill did "lie" to the Senate and ignore the President and Secretary of State why was he allowed to continue to led the negoatations? The answer is that he did not lie and did not ignore orders. If he had he would have been replaced. There is no credibility to the accusations against him.
#6
Nathan Reynolds, I'm a little skeptical of Ambassador Hill's resume. Bosnia, Kosovo, and North Korea are not my definition of diplomacy successes, particularly in the sense of spreading democracy/freedom and making America safer.
Though the striped pants set would most likely disagree with me.
The purpose of the diplomatic efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo was not to spread democracy and freedom but to end the fighting that was destabilizing the region. This was ultimately successful in Bosnia and although Kosovo required military force to resolve it was not Chris Hill's fault. I'd like to know if anyone else could have convinced Slobodan Milosovitch to do the right thing and withdraw from Kosovo peacefully.
Moving on, the North Korean negotations were set up to try and halt and reverse their nuclear program. Frankly this was a near impossible task. North Korea is a extremely isolated, paranoid, and nationalistic country that absolutely has no regard for world opinion. The idea that they could be talked or pressured into surrendering their nuclear weapons was far fretched. However, Chris Hill did his absolute best to try and make that happen. Furthermore, he succeeded in getting them to stop producing weapons and to begin dismantling their nuclear facilities. I have also not heard any real alternatives to solve this issue.
As for Senator Brownback being upset that human rights issues were not included in the negoatations I fully understand why they weren't. First the point of the talks was to deal with the nuclear program and bringing up human rights would have been a distraction that would have likely set back any progress being made on the key issue. Human rights should be dealt with in a completely separate set of talks with the North Koreans and Senator Brownback would have known this if he had any experience in foreign affairs.
All these objections to Chris Hill are purely political and have nothing to do with the facts or his actual record. Also the idea floated around some circles that Chris Hill is some kind of liberal Obama flunkie is absolutely untrue. He has served in the State Department for more than thirty years and has held three different ambassadorships (Macedonia, Poland, and South Korea) two of which were under President Bush.
#9
Appears the Rantburg is read by current or retired FSO's. I think you should invite us over to State and a luncheon in the executive dining room to further discuss Hill's work and merits. Seafarious, please start working on the Rantburg table flags and guest list.
#10
I'll grant you that the inability to speak Arabic doesn't, in and of itself, disqualify him. Point taken.
As to Mr. Hill's ethics, they're damning. Just the incident with Karadzic should disqualify him.
Mr. Hill did a very poor job on North Korea. He continued a system that allowed the Norks to snow us on the nuclear reactor program. He pushed a system that said, essentially, that we should trust the Norks when the Norks had previously demonstrated that they couldn't be trusted. Please note that the Norks have NOT stopped producing weapons, and they have NOT dismantled (yet) the essential parts of their production facilities.
Brownback has the right idea on human rights on North Korea. If you focus on that the other problems begin to solve themselves. if you don't Kimmie and his people continue to lie to you.
Hill is a 'realist' -- always focusing on short-term issues when what is needed is a long-term understanding of how to solve problems. That's just as critical for Iraq as for North Korea.
Indeed the success we had in Kosovo and Bosnia was precisely because we, unlike the other European nations, did NOT focus on the short-term: we demanded not only an end to the shooting, but also demanded a round-up of the war criminals (the ones that Hill wanted to protect) and the implementation of, for want of a better term, 'nation-building'. The results are clear: Kosovo is now an independent state because WE (excluding Mr. Hill, who was obstructing) focused long-term -- what does it take to help these people? Bosnia now is healing because WE (excluding Mr. Hill) focused long-term -- how do we get the Croats and Bosniacs to work together?
That's enlightened diplomacy, and Hill doesn't strike me as that enlightened.
If Mr. Hill had been thinking long-term on North Korea back when, he would have focused on verification and compliance, he would have focused on finding ways to get food to the people without it going through Kimmie's thugs, and he would have focused on getting China to curb their dog. He did none of these things, and as a result the can has been kicked down the road to 2009.
What's needed in Iraq is long-term thinking. The short-term thinking, for example that of Obama and most Democrats, is "how do we get American troops home?" Whereas the real question is, "how do we ensure that Iraq remains stable and democratic?" To focus on the latter question is to ensure we get the payoff for our blood and sacrifice. That's the long-term plan, and that's what our next ambassador has to achieve. Anything less is failure.
Mr. Hill does not inspire me with confidence.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/25/2009 9:45 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Nathan Reynolds, I appreciate your input. I hope you continue to contribute here. We probably have a lot to learn from each other, and I'll have to go read more on Chris Hill.
#12
That Bush didn't fire Hill was demonstrative of one of Bush's worst flaws. There were several times that CIA and State people actively worked against his policies or just plain failed. I don't know if it's that Bush was just too nice or what.
Hill's long history in State tells me that he is definitely one who has gone native and puts himself above any elected official.
March 25, 2009: Al Qaeda has a serious intelligence problem in its Pakistani sanctuary. Someone is ratting them out. In the last seven months, U.S. UAVs have carried out 38 Hellfire missile attacks on al Qaeda (and a few Taliban) leaders. In the three years before that, there were less than a dozen such attacks. Something has changed, and it has the al Qaeda leadership increasingly worried, alarmed, paranoid and desperate to find out who is letting the Americans know where the terrorist leaders are. This Hellfire campaign is hitting al Qaeda at the very top, with at least nine (of 20) senior leaders, and dozens of middle-management types killed in the last seven months.
Tough to be a number 3. Maybe one should stick to being a number 3,000?
While al Qaeda believes local Pakistanis are responsible for leaking location information to the Americans, it's a bit more complicated than that. First of all, the U.S. has had a good informant network in the Pakistani tribal territories for the last few years. This came about in the late 1990s when, after having been away for a decade (since Russia left Afghanistan in the late 1980s), U.S. intelligence operatives returned to the Afghan border area, and began developing an informant network inside Afghanistan, using tribal connections on the Pakistani side. After September 11, 2001, this network kept growing. So did the force of Predator (and later the larger Reaper) UAVs available to run round-the-clock surveillance on al Qaeda operations. The main obstacle to using all this information was the Pakistani president (Pervez Musharraf), an army general who did not want to anger the tribesmen by letting the Americans launch a lot of Hellfire missiles from their UAVs. Musharraf insisted on personally approving each Hellfire strike, and he did not do this very often. Musharraf lost his job last August, and the U.S. told the new civilian government that it was now open season on al Qaeda. The new Pakistani government asked the Americans to be as discreet, and accurate, as possible, and then hunkered down for the public outrage over this American "attack on Pakistan." But in fact, the Hellfire attacks were killing men who were responsible for terrorist attacks that had killed hundreds of Pakistanis.
The U.S. intelligence network in Pakistan had connections everywhere. Even pro-Taliban tribesmen were willing to earn some money by informing on al Qaeda. That's because many Taliban did not like the al Qaeda people (most of the them foreigners) much at all. The Taliban has tried to maintain good, or at least civil, relations with al Qaeda. But that efforts has frayed to the point where al Qaeda big shots like Osama bin Laden spends most of his time staying hidden from U.S. UAVs, Pakistani troops and hostile Pushtun tribesmen.
Continued on Page 49
#2
First of all, the U.S. has had a good informant network in the Pakistani tribal territories for the last few years. This came about in the late 1990s when, after having been away for a decade (since Russia left Afghanistan in the late 1980s), U.S. intelligence operatives returned to the Afghan border area, and began developing an informant network inside Afghanistan, using tribal connections on the Pakistani side.
To the person who had this particular bright idea: thank you!!!!
After September 11, 2001, this network kept growing. So did the force of Predator (and later the larger Reaper) UAVs available to run round-the-clock surveillance on al Qaeda operations.
The U.S. intelligence network in Pakistan had connections everywhere. Even pro-Taliban tribesmen were willing to earn some money by informing on al Qaeda. That's because many Taliban did not like the al Qaeda people (most of the them foreigners) much at all. The Taliban has tried to maintain good, or at least civil, relations with al Qaeda. But that efforts has frayed to the point where al Qaeda big shots like Osama bin Laden spends most of his time staying hidden from U.S. UAVs, Pakistani troops and hostile Pushtun tribesmen.
The poor man!
It's bad enough that al Qaeda is losing senior people, it's worse that they are now seen, by local tribesmen, as a way to get rich.
Schadenfreude. We should all be ashamed to feel it so strongly.
March 22, 2009: There have been three collisions, involving American SSNs in the Persian Gulf, during the last five years. On March 20th, a U.S. 24,000 ton amphibious ship (the USS New Orleans, LPD 18) collided with a submerged submarine (the 7,000 ton USS Hartford, SSN 768) in the narrow Straits of Hormuz. Fifteen sailors aboard the sub were injured, while a fuel tank on the LPD was torn open, and 25,000 gallons of fuel oil got into the water. Both vessels returned to port under their own power. The accident happened at 1 AM, local time.
In January, 2007, there was a minor collision between an American nuclear sub (the USS Newport News) and 1,100 foot long, 300,000 ton tanker (the Mogamigawa) in the Persian Gulf. There was some damage to the ship, in the form of a 108 foot long tear in the rear hull. The tear was four inches wide, and letting water in. The U.S. sub had its sonar dome, in the bow, badly damaged. But both vessels were able to make it back to port under their own power. An investigation revealed that the tanker was passing safely over the 360 foot long Newport News, but was going at such "high speed" (probably about 35 kilometers an hour), that a sucking effect was created, that pulled the 6,300 ton sub up until its bow banged against the bottom of the passing tanker. The Newport News was moving south, through the Straits of Hormuz, as was the Japanese ship. The tanker carried a crew of 24, the sub has 127 sailors on board.
In late 2005, nuclear submarine USS Philadelphia and a Turkish freighter collided in the Persian Gulf. In that case, the sub was on the surface, but the small radar signature of the surfaced sub did not show on the freighters radar until the ship was almost on top of the sub. The freighter and sub were on converging courses, with the freighter behind the sub. The collision, which had the 53,000 ton freighter running up over the back of the Philadelphia, on the right side, did not cause serious damage to either vessel. The sub suffered damage to its propeller, the fairwater plane, the rudder and the housing for the towed sonar array. The freighter got a hundred foot gash in its hull, right above the waterline. The two ships were entangled for an hour, but both made it back to port on their own.
The Straits of Hormuz, and the Persian Gulf in general, is a busy waterway, and there are always one or two U.S. SSNs there. That pattern, and all those collisions, may lead to changes in the way U.S. nuclear subs operate in these crowded waters. The Persian Gulf is 989 kilometers long, and the average depth is 50 meters (maximum depth is 90 meters). A U.S. SSN is about 18 meters from the bottom of the sub (the keel) to the top of the sail (the box like structure on top of the sub).
#2
Yes - it's shallow. Maybe they need to resume practice in the great lakes - Erie, Ontario and Michigan are similarly shallow and with narrow shipping channels, and, of course, very close to ports and service.
#4
During the last Ice Age, the Persian Gulf was a long, wide valley, not a "gulf" at all. About a third to a half of the Med was also dry land. The ice stored in those glaciers sucked up 600 FEET (190 meters) of water from the oceans of the world.
The Persian Gulf is a terrible place to operate a nuke sub. Two of the most important tactics of escape or evasion - diving deep, evasive maneuvering - are lost. The activity of some 600 vessels a day also gives a sub skipper gray hairs, and for good reason. At least three of their number have seen their careers cratered there.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/25/2009 20:21 Comments ||
Top||
The request sounded innocent enough. "To all editors and TV stars on staff," read the e-mail from an intern to the office-wide listserv of The New Republic, the magazine I work for. "A woman just called the office from Atlantic Television News (ATN), which is based in Denmark but has an office on K St. She is looking for someone to go on their news show Friday at 3 pm to do post-op on the VP debate."
Two days later, I showed up at the studio, where a woman wearing a Muslim-style headscarf and the producer, another woman with a Middle Eastern--sounding name, greeted me. They led me to the green room, where one of my co-panelists, an Arab political analyst, was talking loudly on his cell phone. A homogeneous country, Denmark must be trying to impress us multicultural Americans, I presumed. Then my co-panelist finished his cell-phone conversation and asked me, "Is this your first time appearing on PressTV?"
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.
