The US gov't has long had an odd fascination with stopping online gambling (except for horse racing -- which politicians engage in -- and state lotteries, for obvious reasons).
Sometimes, this obsession reaches bizarre levels, such as the claim a few years back that it wasn't just illegal to run an online gambling operation, but that it was illegal to help advertise one.
Most have pointed out that this has little actual legal basis, and is likely a violation of free speech rights -- but that hasn't stopped the government from using such threats.
Two years ago, the feds charged some ad execs with a whole bunch of crimes simply because they had the company BetOnSports as a client.
BetOnSports, of course, was completely legal outside the US, but that didn't stop the US from claiming otherwise (even arresting BetOnSports' CEO as he was traveling through the US in a completely separate action from the lawsuit in this post).
Even if it turns out that BetOnSports is somehow illegal, it makes no sense to drag in execs from a totally different company that only created promotional campaigns for BetOnSports. That hardly seems to deserve getting charged criminally.
But, when the gov't wants to put you down, it finds a way. The three ad execs have now all plead guilty in the case. Even though they had nothing to do with running the gambling site, they agreed to a plea bargain to avoid a lengthy and costly trial that could have resulted in a lot of jail time.
It's not clear yet what the sentences will be in this case, as that will be announced in October, but at least some of the execs may get off without jail time. That's good, but it still remains ridiculous that they had to go through this two year ordeal just because they created promotions for the company. Years ago, it was illegal to advertise the (Batista) Cuban lottery in the US. It was for the public's own good.
#1
I always found it fascinating that Nevada banned the advertising in Las Vegas of their legal brothels in the state, but then turned around and spent dollars advertising the glories of Las Vegas gambling in states in which gambling was illegal. As they say YJCMTSU.
There came a point in my life when I was desperately seeking a domestic worker because I could not cope with my job, my baby and all my household chores. I went to the advertisement board at a nearby convenience store and took down a few contact details. I called a number of women and set up appointments with six of them. One of them, a South African , did not pitch up. But she sent me a cellphone message to call her . When I phoned her back, she asked if I could pick her up because she did not have money for transport .
I told her that five other women , who were not South African, had managed to make it to my house at the specified times. One even came with her young child strapped to her back.
This episode, among many others, made it clear to me that, as South Africans, we have an attitude of entitlement. We think that the world owes us something.
Continued on Page 49
#3
They can come to GUAM-WESTPAC like Milyuhns and Zilyuhns of [future]Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos, Chinese, etal. trying to legally or illegaly emigrate = get away from the Radical Islamist threat in Asia, the various Pan-Enviro Crises = "Earth/Land CHanges" induced by Global Warming, etc. and find new lives in new Places or Continents.
MULTI-REGIONAL = GLOBAL DIASPORAS + DISPLACEMENTS.
*TOPIX > THE GREAT GLOBAL RESOURCES WAR HAS BEGUN?
#5
South Africa is the first nation to transition from the First World to Third World. It's not a pretty process and Western Europe should pay attention.
A black south african, wants conditions for work as a domestic, and non-South african immigrants will grab the work.
Er excuse me, but that sounds like progress. The march of capitalism. Thats what HAPPENS in developing countries as wages rise and job choices increase - to get the same kind of domestics you used to get, you got to hire immigrans, legal or otherwise.
RSA may have much problems (like crime) but this particular problem in hiring a maid doesnt show it.
#7
People unwilling to work is only a sign of progress if they have prospects and aren't just feeling entitled in an economy unable to support such entitlements.
#9
par for the course...the continent that even after the cart had been invented for thousands of years the people still choose to carry pots on their heads...W needs to send them more of our tax $$$ to fight aids...
Look, I realize we messed up with this Georgia thing," said Lavrov. "We just want to make it good and get this thing behind us, because anybody who knows us knows that we are all about friendship, and keeping our good reputation."
But some inside the diplomatic community say it may take time for Russia to get back on the international A-List.
"It's a shame, because Russia is a such a great guy when he's not drinking and invading neighbors," said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "I think it might help if some of us got together and organized an intervention."
For his part Lavrov rejected the idea that his nation had a drinking and invading problem.
Is that "appeasement" we see sidling shyly out of the closet of history? Are we doomed to recall the infamous remark by a Western leader that it was "fantastic" to think Europe should involve itself in "a quarrel in a faraway country between people of which we know nothing"? As the United States and the Europeans feverishly debate how to respond to Russia's onslaught on Georgia, are the ghosts of Europe's bloody history rising from their shallow graves?
As those of a certain age will recall, "appeasement" encapsulated the determination of British governments of the 1930s to avoid war in Europe, even if it mean capitulating to the ever-increasing demands of Adolf Hitler. The nadir came in 1938, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain acceded to Hitler's demand to take over the western slice of Czechoslovakiaa dispute Chamberlain so derisively dismissed.
It is impossible to view the Russian onslaught against Georgia without these bloodstained memories rising to mind. In history, as the great French President Charles de Gaulle remarkedno doubt plagiarising someone elsethe only constant is geography. And through centuries of European history the only constant has been that small countries, doomed by geography to lie between great powers, are destined to be the cockpit for their imperial ambitions. That's held true since the Low Countries' agony under Spanish power in the 1500s. And the lichen has not yet spread over the gravestones of Europe and America that mark the toll of the two European wars of the 20th centuryboth having their roots in struggles between rival empires to assert power over the luckless nations of central Europe.
This time, the cockpit lies further east. In the wake of the cold war, the West providentially summoned the nerve to push NATO eastward to incorporate the former Warsaw Pact vassals of the Soviet Unionpresciently doing this while post-Soviet Russia was too weak to resist. But once Moscow got its breath back, anyone with historical wit could foresee a revived Russian push for influence in central Europe. Many argued against this NATO expansion, calling it "premature" and "sure to inflame Russia." The usual arguments. Those naysayers might now look at the Russian offensive in Georgia, and ponder how much greater this crisis would be had it involved, say, Poland or Hungary or the Czech Republic. At least central Europe is now under the umbrella of NATO Article 5 guarantees.
Instead, what we see are conflicts at the new margins of the West's sway: Ukraine, the Balkans, now Georgia. These conflicts have one common factor: a resurgent Russia determined to exploit local grievances to beat back Western influencein shorthand, democracyon its shrunken frontiers. Using, in all cases, precisely the argument (a Russian right to protect its citizens, in Serbia its co-religionists) that Hitler used in the 1930s. The Sudeten Czechs were Germans, after all. Just as the South Ossetians now are, well, sort of Russianhaving at any rate been issued Russian passports.
The European urge to appease Russia will be strong....
The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.
Lets begin simply by reviewing the last few days.
On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.
On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the regions absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded within hours of the Georgian attack the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.
On Monday, the Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.
In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgias move was deliberate.
The United States is Georgias closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgias mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?
It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but along with the Georgians miscalculated Russias intentions. The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.
If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscows calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.
The Western Encirclement of Russia
To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.
That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATOs expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.
The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russias national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion publicly stated was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.
The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovos separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts including demands by various regions for independence from Russia might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russias requests were ignored.
From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.
Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didnt mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.
Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.
By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.
The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.
The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.
Therefore, the United States has a problem it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscows interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).
In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isnt all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.
The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russias public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/13/2008 08:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Russia is going to back Iran no matter what. They are already building them a goddamned heavy water reactor that will produce plutonium. What's a lousy S-300 defense system going the do to change the balance of power? There must be a counter move against russia or they will keep advancing.
#2
The counter move against Russia should be the U.S. pulling out of NATO.
As long as the Europeans look to the U.S. as the counterweight to Russia they will continue to neglect their own military capabilities. Furthermore, the U.S. will have forces tied down in Europe.
If the Europeans are forced to provide for their own defense then they will upgrade their continental forces. The U.S. can focus it's efforts in Central Asia.
Russia is not the Soviet Union and they do not have the eastern bloc. Poland, East Germany, Hungary, etc., have all switched sides. A Euro/Russian war would be no contest if the the Europeans were serious about their own defense.
If the US were to pull out of NATO and redeploy US troops in Europe elsewhere (like back home which is something I'd love to see happen) it would force a strategic realignment of NATO and the eastern European countries. Russia is right on their doorstep. If the US pulled out, they'd be faced with either cozying back up to Russia or trying to face off with it in a game of military buildup and brinksmanship that, without US backing with troops, NATO and eastern Europe could not hope to counter.
So, faced with the likely response of western Europe which would likely be to stand by and do nothing, the eastern European countries would have no choice IMO than to cozy back up to the Russian bear to keep it appeased. That means the dissolution of NATO and the re-emergence of the Warsaw Pact eventually and a strategic realignment of major proportions.
Russia eventually regains its allied buffer countries and, rich with its oil wealth and growing ever-richer, reasserts itself on the world stage as a counterweight to US strategic objectives, policy, and power.
All as a result of the US pulling out of NATO and redeploying its troops elsewhere.
The chances that wetern European countries would actually step up to the plate, increase defense spending and actually stand up to Russia in defense of eastern Europe is, IMO, virtually nil.
#5
As much as I hate to admit it, Russia sneaked through with an end-around on this one. The US simply isn't in a position to defend Georgia for its strategic foulup and it's just not worth the potential cost in American lives to attempt to do so no matter how badly that hurts.
I've seen other people around the web venting and saying that we ought to do stupid crap like threatening nuclear war against Russia for this. That's extraordinarily stupid IMO not to mention shortsighted. Georgia simply isn't worth a hundred million lives lost in the US alone or the complete and utter destruction of the US as a strategic power (and I believe that's what a full-on nuclear war between the US and Russia would result in - Russia a devastated wasteland and the US reduced to 3rd world status with our greatest cities, our industry, infrastructure, communications, and capabilities equally reduced).
I'm sorry, truly I am. Georgia and Saakashvili screwed the pooch and are going to be left holding the bag. We can help with humanitarian aid and reconstruction, but we've gotten hurt here strategically and have egg on our face. We need to hold Russia's feet to the fire and completely punish them for this, but it must be done in other ways - keeping them out of the G6/7/8 or whatever, making sure the value of the ruble is reduced somehow, reducing their markets for Russian investments, especially here in the US and in western Europe (if the western Europeans have the guts), and anywhere else (especially Cuba and Venezuela) they try to raise their heads. If a new Cold War is the result, well, we won the last one and there are a whole lot of other ways we can hrt Russia where it really counts - in their pockets.
I do hope that this does instill in people the fact that Russia is not, and never has been and probably never will be, our friend or a friend to freedom and democracy anywhere.
#6
I actually agree with your attitude on the state of European culture, which is why NATO has to end. Europeans have become like welfare queens, no longer assuming responsibiliy for their defense, but believing they are entitled to repect. The cycle of dependency must be broken.
Europe will cozy up to, and cave in to, Russia whether the U.S. is there or not. Moreover, they will seek to curtail U.S. actions as part of their appeasement (as they did with our missiles in the 80's and do with our missile defenses today) and they will resent us for being there.
If there were no U.S. presence in Europe, the Europeans will have no one to blame for their trouble other than those responsible (themselves). You may be right and withdrawing our troops will not fix their mental attitudes; however, it is the only hope they have, because remaining as their protectors surely will not.
I also don't believe Russia will be quite as rich and powerful as you think. It has a declining population and an economy based on commodities. As they try to re-grow their empire they will begin to remember why it fell last time: 1) empires are expensive and tend to bleed the imperials and 2) your new serfs hate your guts.
#2 already applies to eastern Europe and I believe it will also aplly to will also apply to western Europe if we give them the chance.
#7
Perhaps NATO isn't the issue. Perhaps we should suggest to the Chinese that we are going to push for Japan to change their consitution to rearm if they don't help us contain the Russians.
If that doesn't work get the Japanese to change their constitution. I think the threat is better than the reality but the Russians don't want that crap going on in the East.
#8
A big OH PULEEEEZE to most of the analysis in this article.
Let's start and end with the basically undefined issues of eactly what is Russia/CCCP/Tsarist Empire's "national security"?
What is their "nation" and how or when has it ever been "secure"? I suppose Brazil would be the least of Russia's worries, but the US is a close second. Kissinger is only the most recent analyst to emphasize this point, but he's neither the first nor will he be the last.
"Russia has been an empire for centuires"! Correct, and empires have been going out of style since at least 1776, arguably since 1215 - you'd think Marxists, of all people, would recognize the dialectics at play, but I suppose they're stuck repeating history out of habit. That, and for all their scientific prowess they still are stuck in remedial economics class.
#9
F: I've seen other people around the web venting and saying that we ought to do stupid crap like threatening nuclear war against Russia for this.
I think we can stop well short of threatening a nuclear war and still punish Russia to the point that its presence in Georgia becomes too expensive to sustain. We could resupply the Georgians - the way the Russians resupplied the North Vietnamese and the North Koreans. We could supply American "volunteers" to help the Georgians fight the way the Russians had "volunteers" flying North Korean and North Vietnamese aircraft against our flyboys. We could take a whack at its economy by imposing unilateral economic sanctions on Russia. There's a lot of things we could do to remind the Russian public why it's a bad idea to elect someone like Putin to power, ranging from body bags without end to a ruble crash.
#11
Georgia simply isn't worth a hundred million lives lost in the US alone or the complete and utter destruction of the US as a strategic power (and I believe that's what a full-on nuclear war between the US and Russia would result in - Russia a devastated wasteland and the US reduced to 3rd world status with our greatest cities, our industry, infrastructure, communications, and capabilities equally reduced).
Is there a hidden assumption here? I would suggest that it is US which would be a "devastated wasteland", and Russia would merely suffer an infrastructure loss. For two reasons. First, Russia is 1.8 times larger than U.S. And second, it has more stockpiled nukes (you can check some websites for the numbers, including wiki)
#16
rjschwarz, in 1812 Napoleon took Moscow (and burned it to the ground) yet the rest somehow did not fall apart. Same is 1941, although Moscow was almost taken, most of the industry was already evacuated elsewhere. It stays "elsewhere" since then. Anyway, it's just silly to talk about the nukes (where it is all leading to?) that was my point.
#17
Correction, Read all of my comment then. I'm not assuming Russia does not have nukes (it has considerably less of them than it used to, as do we, but only about 1/3rd of Russia's ICBM silo's and missiles are capable of firing due to the deterioration of their infrastructure and disarmament since the end of the Cold War - that's not to say that the two countries would not destroy one another however. I did say that the talk was foolish and made the statement to point out that Georgia simply isn't worth 100 million dead in the US alone and that anyone who says something as foolish as we should threaten nuclear war is simply dumber than a stump).
How fortunate, the armchair strategists say, that Georgia hadn't already joined Nato. For what would we have done then?
How would the mutual defence on which the pact is supposed to be based have come to the rescue of plucky little Georgia? Would stealth bombers have blackened the skies over Moscow? Would 2 Para be driving the Russian bear back into North Ossetia? Quite.
The events of the past four or five days in the Caucasus make one point very clearly, and we should all note it: it is of the uselessness of thumb-sucking international organisations in the face of a populous and heavily armed country that chooses to behave not in what President Bush has called a 21st-century fashion, but in an early 19th-century one.
If the threat of mutually assured destruction is removed from the equation - more of that later, I am afraid - then such organisations can only function given an element of scrupulousness in international affairs among the high and mighty. There is none.
You can talk about 1938; you can talk about 1914; you can even, if you want to show off, talk about 1811-12: what is in no doubt is that, several times in the modern era, the course of history has been changed by an escalation from the sort of opportunistic bullying we have seen in Georgia, and only a fool would say it would not be again.
Only America has the muscle, the will and the sense of leadership to deal with this. Look at the pathetic response from our own Prime Minister and the pretender to his post, the Foreign Secretary: we can have no dog in this fight to uphold democratic values.
The world has become used to despising the United States for its foreign policy since 2001.
If it wishes to live safely, it had better reverse that opinion, and start to engage constructively in the search for a means to show Russia that appeasement does have an end.
#2
CHINESE MIL FORUM Thread > WHY THERE WILL BE NO WAR [USA] WITH RUSSIA [OR CHINA].For all its power and diplom-correct rhetoric, the USA is instrinsically reluct to militarily intervene in small States or regions right next to major Nuke-Armed Rivals, i.e. RUSSIA + CHINA???
#3
I saw video of hundreds of abandoned Georgian military vehicles. And none were shot up. It is obvious that the military refused to fight for the nationalists. There is a current ceasefire, or actually 2 unilateral ceasefires. As promised, the Russians didn't take land outside of the 2 protectorates that they handed to Georgia as a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The intervention ends Georgia's perverse breach of commitments to protect national minorities. Russia applied the Helsinki Accords in Western Asia. The West should have protected the 2,000,000 Christians that our leaders allowed to be cleansed out of the Holy Lands.
NATO? Only a handful of members responded when GWB invoked Article 5 against Taliban/al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, Turkey remains a worthless member, even as it occupies parts of Europe.
#4
McZoid - a good argument for all sorts of deniable weapons systems. We need to build and install them ASAP. Rods from the Great Satan would be a good start.
Afghanistan is ideal for napalm. Most mortar attacks are executed apart from civilian areas. A flammable liquid (technically gel) ignites over a large area. I do agree that Napalm was used less than cautiously in Vietnam.
#9
Oh my, it's so easy to pick on McZoid. If you really want to put him out of your misery, why don't you come up with a clever argument that proves him obviously wrong.
What has he done that is so wrong? Refused to stand up front in the cheerleading section? If you try to get every poster who annoys you kicked off the site it would be a lonely place indeed. He uses the nationalist line a lot, too much in fact, but I don't think running afoul of you and OldSpook, or Pappy is grounds for pooplisting. Hell, lets ban everyone who introduces a discordant note in the blissful harmony that is Rantburg.
#10
Zenster got banned from Rantburg, not because he ran afoul of mods or other regulars, but because his repetitious assertions degraded the possibility of conversation by anyone else. And because he increasingly chose assertions designed to be provocative in unhelpful ways.
McZoid is coming close to doing that himself, as with the napalm comment. At some point real soon he will be asked to find another playground if it keeps up.
And, I should add, that will occur whether he is posting under his usual IP address or via an anonymizing server in Germany.
#11
This is an online forum. I can't "prove" here that the SUn is made up of hydrogen, a person _pretending_ to be polite can just carry on as if nothing happened, never posting a response, and continue with his argument that it's really made out of radioactive egg yolk instead.
This is the first environment I've seen where it's possible to "win" arguments by simply refusing to acknowledge the existance of other arguments.
It's a cheap rhetorical trick that works well in online fora but has no truck with the truth whatsoever.
#12
It just seems like another form of bullying to me.
He got on the wrong side of a click and since these stories with Georgia started popping up, he's taken a lot of heat for everything he's written.
#13
Wow, what an example of what I was trying to point out. You beat me in argument by simply not replying to what I say and pretending that wins the argument.
The only problem with it is that it's a jamming strategy, it's useless to anyone hoping to actually get information out of the online fora.
(But for one half of the argument, that's a bug not a feature).
#14
"Oh my, it's so easy to pick on McZoid. If you really want to put him out of your misery, why don't you come up with a clever argument that proves him obviously wrong."
Problem is weve DONE that, repeatedly, and he keeps posting as if hed never heard what we've said. I dont mean that he doesnt concede that we are right - I mean he doesnt even modify or improve his arguements, he just posts the same BS over and over in the same form. Responding with the same counters each time gets pretty boring. And even THAT would be tolerable (well by intraweb standards) if he at least kept it to threads where its kind of ontopic, but he doesnt. he posts it where its quite irrelevant.
Plus of course, the bigotry, usually implied, sometimes explicit.
#15
You guys are really getting steamed up over this McZoid thing. You can't expect to never be annoyed by anyone. Not at home, not at work, not here or anywhere else for that matter. If you don't dig what he has to say, skip over it until he says something remotely lucid. I'm not defending him, he may be the world's biggest dumbass, but last time I checked, there were about 4.5billion people in a dead heat for that title. You guys can't just start moaning for the mods when someone says something you don't like.
#16
SG - well than thats fine, but then you cant get upset with OS for a going on a cursing spree against him.
Ditto, you cant keep sinktrapping pro-jihadi comments (I mean well of course you CAN, but not without looking rather arbitrary, which may or may not be a concern)
I mean its either anything goes, or it isnt.
And note, I did not call for McZ to be banned. I said dealt with, and I imagine there are multiple ways of doing that.
#19
I saw video of hundreds of abandoned Georgian military vehicles. And none were shot up. It is obvious that the military refused to fight for the nationalists.
I saw video of abandoned Georgian vehicles, too. Some of them were damaged some not. I wasn't able to look into the vehicles to see the fuel gage but some of them could have run out of fuel. McZoid, your assertion that it is obvious that the Military refused to fight for the government has no basis for belief. In one video they were under attack by Russian bombers and were out in the open I'd get out and find cover, too.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/13/2008 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#20
New day, lets have civilized rational discourse.
It has always been a head scratcher, to me, with the European Union which whenever it comes to a vote does not pass, the expansion of NATO without the logistics to back it up, and new talk about a Mediterrainian Union. All these cross threading of alliances is baffling to a layman nevermind a country's foremost responsibility of protecting its citizens.
To me it looks like a cocktail of water, vinegar, and baking soda which just got shaken around this last week. All I know about this conflict, not to agree with the excuse mongering in this article but had the same questions, is what can be found on the internet which of course is about as trustworthy as a barry oh statement. What I do understand is that there are some countries who understand the old way of conducting war and that should be recognized. "The cleared path is the popular way (last 20 years of western war) but the beaten trail (all the other years and techniques of war) is the proven way".
#23
Back on topic. Besides the obvious losses, is there a positive to Georgia in all of this? International sympathy, unification of a fractious parlament behind Saak or a fast track to NATO membership do to Western guilt about doing nothing? Of course what was the US to do anyhow? Do we go to war with Russia and lose a valuable player in the War on Islamic terrorism?
I'm as militant as they come, but Georgia's attack was as disproportionate as the Russian response. I hate to say it guys but we need Russia as a China hedge and vice -versa.
#24
Georgia's attack on So. Ossetia was launched to disrupt Russia's planned full front attack. It's unfortunate that they did so against our warnings IMO but understandable given the fact that the Russians were shelling Georgia proper via irregulars in So. O.
They were also IMO clearly hoping to bring in the US militarily after Germany vetoed their admission to candidacy for NATO.
One question I have is whether this disrupted a planned attack on Iran by Israel or whether, as reported, the US has vetoed arms to Israel for use in such an attack.
Georgia will lose both separatist provinces. perhaps unavoidable in any case but almost certain now.
They may get new armaments from the US to replace their outdated Soviet stuff. Maybe. Maybe the airfields rebuilt. But Russia will fiercely oppose either move and one way or the other will work hard to install a puppet govt of their liking.
#25
One question I have is whether this disrupted a planned attack on Iran by Israel
unless the israelis have info that Iran is passing a point of no return within the next two months or so, I cant believe they would do it under lame duck olmert rather than wait at least for the new Kadima leader.
#26
M: I saw video of hundreds of abandoned Georgian military vehicles. And none were shot up. It is obvious that the military refused to fight for the nationalists.
A possibility is that Georgian supply dumps and convoys were interdicted and bombed to pieces, meaning that these vehicles either ran out of gas or ammo. If Israel hadn't been resupplied by Uncle Sam during the Yom Kippur War, it would have suffered a similar fate. And in 1973, Israel was a great deal more prepared than today's Georgia for an invasion, with air superiority over its own skies.
#28
M: The Georgian nationalist movement is hardly a wall of resolve. They ran. Georgians will run them out of office.
Possibly so. But we don't know that from bits of news we're getting. We will find out just how determined they are when we resupply them with weaponry to hold off the Russians. But the fact is that vehicles need gasoline, and soldiers need food, water and ammunition. The Russians appear to blasted all the Georgian supply dumps in short order.
#29
another issue is sheer fatigue. The units that "broke" at Gori were, IIUC the same ones that had first gone into SO. If so theyd been fighting continuously for several days. and for at least the previous 24 hours under regular Russain attack from the air. Units break under conditions like that.
IIUC there were US units in North Korea that broke as well in 1950.
#31
I'm not a mod (thankfully)...my $.02 - if a person doesn't forment ad hominen attacks on another poster I say let'em stay and run their suck no matter how silly...Aris annoyed me to no end, I'm glad he's gone because he was hopelessley arrogant, tedious to the extreme & did occasionally attack other posters - though I'm not sure I agree w/McZ I haven't seen him attack anybody the way I've seen some others attack him. Ultimately, it's Fred's site - he can ban whoever he wants for whatever reason.
Includes nuclear weapon discussion
Note 2 SS-21 weapons introduced. Suggestion that Russia was threatening to go Nuke if the US intervened and was making the point it would use tactical nukes against the US.
Apologists in the West
The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state.
The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow and they wont be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we cant say Russia cant do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovos independence, so why not Ossetias? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgias.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgias efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship).
From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists and once more they will not be disappointed. We are a culture, after all, that after damning Iraqi democracy as too violent, broke, and disorganized, is now damning Iraqi democracy as too conniving, rich, and self-interested the only common denominator being whatever we do, and whomever we help, cannot be good.
#2
The only real question is about Russia I think, not about Georgia.
Will we counter expansionist moves by Russia or not?
NATO has an army, its members have a nuclear arsenal also, as well as access to most of the worlds commerce.
So why are we made out to be so toothless by the press?
#3
Is South Osettia worth the price of a hundred million US lives lost due to a nuclear war in the US alone? While the US could certainly destroy Russia with nuclear weapons, what would the cost be for this country and its allies in western and eastern Europe?
Is South Osettia or even Georgia proper worth confronting Russia militarily on the battlefield and the blood of American soldiers against Russia in Georgia?
Possession of nuclear weapons by western Europe does in no fashion guarantee that the western European governments and military would be willing to risk their own countries existences in using them against Russia over something the western European governments clearly have no interest in.
Russia is their energy lifeline. They're not stupid, but they are timid so there's virtually no chance that western Europe would risk becoming involved in any military confrontation with Russia IMO.
To threaten nuclear war over Georgia is strategically naive and denies the fact that tens of millions on both sides would be lost in any such exchange.
There are other ways to punish Russia than threatening them with nuclear war.
Five days after the four-year-long skirmishes between separatist South Ossetian forces and the Georgian military blew up into a full-scale war between Russia and Georgia, a French-brokered agreement was reached which involved the withdrawal of Georgian and Russian troops to the positions they held before the flare-up, although no timetable to the pullback was announced.
This is the beginning of an apparently larger international effort to find a permanent resolution to the South Ossetian and Abkhazian problem.
Russian leaders and the official Russian media called the war a "peace enforcement operation" aimed at stopping Georgia from "committing genocide in South Ossetia" and trumpeted the war as just punishment for Georgia and a clear-cut military and political victory for Russia. Neither assertion stands up to scrutiny. The self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia seceded from Georgia in the early 1990s. In both cases, the Russian military provided crucial help to the secessionists. In practice, Russian policies vis-à-vis both republics amounted to de facto annexation: most residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia were granted Russian citizenship, and various forms of economic aid were given to both republics.
Moreover, Russian military contingents in both regions - officially the OSCE-sponsored peacekeeping force - provided shields against potential Georgian efforts to bring the seceding regions back under effective Georgia sovereignty. In the long term, this arrangement, while very convenient for Russia, was untenable.
What unifies the fractious Georgian body politic is the determination to recover both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, while secessionist leaders, encouraged by the successful Kosovo independence drive, have become much more aggressive in lobbying Russia to grant them official recognition. This simmering conflict could and ultimately was used for Russian domestic and international purposes.
During the early months of Medvedev's presidency, the first signs of his efforts to weaken the stranglehold of the security establishment (the so-called siloviki) over key policy issues and to dissociate himself from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin were apparent. By launching the war in the Caucasus, both Putin and the siloviki reasserted their primacy in domestic politics. In fact, it was clear that the orders were coming from Putin rather than president Medvedev, the constitutional commander-in-chief. Moreover, showing that constitutional legalities are of no consideration when affairs of state are at stake, Putin had not bothered to ask the Federation Council, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, for the constitutionally-required permission to use Russian troops outside sovereign Russian territory.
More importantly, the invasion of Georgia was meant to be a forceful demonstration of resurgent Russia's role as a key player in world affairs and a regional superpower. By inflicting a military knock-out punch on Georgian President Saakashvili, perceived by Russia as a mere puppet of the US, and demanding a regime change in Tbilisi as a condition of a resolution to the crisis, Russia sent the message that it would neither tolerate hostile regimes in bordering states nor permit its economic hegemony in the region to be challenged (hence bombing the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline - which bypasses Russia).
It remains to be seen whether the Russian use of force in Georgia achieved its desired goals. The first signs, however, point to the opposite. Rather than toppling Saakashvilli, Russia's overwhelming use of force unified, at least temporarily, Georgia's body politic behind the president. After the war, the status quo ante in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer tenable and the policy choices facing Russia in the region - official annexation or recognition of their independence - would not be accepted internationally. Moreover, Russian troops can no longer be perceived as an evenhanded peacekeeping force, and this may bring pressure for their replacement with either UN or some other more neutral peacekeeping troops.
Internationally, Russia's use of force could in the long run completely undermine Russian credibility when it speaks against the use of force in Iran or condemns potential future confrontation between Israel and Hizbullah (in 2006, Russia condemned in the harshest terms Israel's "excessive use of force").
Finally, as Israelis know well, bombing and invading small countries never looks good on TV in the West, however justified it might be. In the court of public opinion, Russia has already lost, something the independent Russian media was quick to acknowledge. Some in the US are already calling for a American boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, and that may perhaps be only the beginning.
Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader's imagination at best-seller level. 'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction.
Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.
How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya's history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barack Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception, because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.
Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries?
Where are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or the fact that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Muammar Qaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?
As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American mainstream media clammed up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from mainstream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam?
Why do they focus on 'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is: Muslims killing non-Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barack Hussein Obama to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?
A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohammed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. 'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'
There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd.
Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States?
Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?
Change for America? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?
#3
What difference does it make that the mainstream news organizations do not report these stories? The blogs have done so, and their readership has grown as mainstream media consumers discovered a better alternative. The stories are out there, and commonly known, even by those who do not believe them.
The UN is more likely owned by Russia and China than by the Muslim bloc, as it has been for most of its existence. Nor is Senator Obama the only candidate a friend to Arab/Muslim causes. If I recall correctly, the most frequently invited guest to the Clinton White House was Yasser Arafat, with or without his bleached blond wife. Remember, it is only because the press refused to pursue the John Edwards infidelity story, which had nothing to do with Senator Obama, that Obama took the Iowa primary after Edwards and Clinton split the union vote.
#4
The UN (other than the GA and some silly offshots like the Human rights council)is controlled by its bigger and richer members, which include Russia, china, France, Japan, Germany, and the United States. We have very considerable sway over the operation of the UN, though not when we get all the other big powers on the opposite side. Thats only one example of the absurdity of this article - to take manifest untruths to twist a policy as "pro-muslim" whatever exactly that means.
I dont think I need to go into the many other lies, smears and twists here.
Of coures the MSM isnt going to go over the every trash rumor or twist. Just as they dont go over every trash item from the left like the smears I wont repeat about Bushs grandpa (Im talking the US MSM here, as for the BBC, well feh)
BTW, the reason they print HRCs middle name, is cause, you know she regulary uses it, at least in part to make herself seem more seperate from her husband. What was Michael Dukakis' middle name? dont remember, well neither do I.
Cmon, this sort of thing gives attacks on Obama a bad name, and distracts from SERIOUS criticisms on his lack of experience, his economic plans, his flip flops, etc.
SO then, the Commando has got us into all sorts of trouble, what, by continuing to hang on to the Presidents Lodge (née Army House) by his manicured fingernails! Well, what did you expect of someone who wrote (allegedly, for the authorship of that absurd farce seems to rest more on someone elses shoulders according to Musharraf himself stand up Humayun Gohar) In the Line of Fire!?
Throughout the debate that has raged between the transitionists and the transformationists (among the latters number I proudly count myself) I have begged people to please, please read the book. Please read the book to really know the extent of the trouble we are in, I begged everyone.
For in it you see an adolescent in a full generals uniform I detest this new Americanism of one-star, three-star and so on still proud of once being a 12-year-old young thug leading a gang of other urchins and beating people up on the streets of Karachi.
Or, indeed, of doubling up with laughter (alongside his cousins and brothers) when his Uncle Haider, allegedly once-upon-a-time an Air Force Academy sword-carrier i.e. a cadet under officer, slapped a bald man on the head, not once but twice in Frere Gardens pretending it was someone else. As an Indian reader informed me this was one of the scenes in an Indian film of the day!
Or indeed, in later years being proud of not giving a damn about the rules of behaviour under which gentlemen cadets at the Pakistan Military Academy conducted themselves, the very first being the honour system under which you ensured you did the right thing by yourself.
The instances the man quotes are gob-smacking to say the least. He even congratulates himself for having got away with cheating and taking a shortcut on the infamous nine-mile endurance test in which you had to run/walk nine miles in light FSMO (Field Service Marching Order) in under 90 minutes.
It was a cardinal sin to cheat at PMA, yet he felicitates himself for having been spared relegation to the next lower term, or indeed, being dishonourably discharged from the PMA for the very great crime he committed.
I write this on the early morning of Monday and have already seen some very interesting stories in this same newspaper; exactly the kind of stories you would expect in matters Musharraf. The first is that Rashid Qureshi, his press secretary, has said he is not resigning; no way. Vintage Macho Musharraf!
On the same page there is a long story on how the Americans want him to stay in the country in an honourable way after he resigns/is thrown out of office. Now, whilst the Americans are much practised in protecting their stooges who do their bidding Nuri Al-Maliki in Iraq and Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, both of whom rely on American security contractors, read under-cover CIA operatives, to provide them close security why in Gods name should the Americans be concerned about where in the world Musharraf lives after he is made to relinquish his vice-like hold on Pakistans jugular?
Could it be possible that the request for honourable stay in Pakistan was made by Musharraf himself to his tight buddy Dubya and that the Americans were demanding of the Pakistanis to provide the man the same level of security comprising regular army troops, three diversionary motorcades and so on, as a price of his leaving office? So he can play president, president with his buddies forever?
That is, to continue being presidential without the responsibility?! Is this Dubyas parting gift to his tight buddy whose tightness became ever tighter as more and more Pakistanis (and poor Afghans as reports HRW, one of them a farmer who had a dispute with his neighbour) were sold to the Americans for bounty money at $5000 per?
But why should we the people allow that? Have we forgotten how every single elected leader was seen out of office by the establishment with the active support of the Pakistan army? Have we forgotten that every single time the bloody civilian leaders went home they went home via jail, even the hangmans noose? If they werent assassinated and the whole thing shoved under the rather humungous Pakistani carpet, that is?
Why should we forget Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khans murder in Liaquat Bagh; then Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos judicial murder in Rawalpindi jail; then Nawaz Sharifs incarceration in Attock Fort and trial in an anti-terrorism court and then exile under the pressure of those whose $s are so valuable to any Pakistani dictator; then Benazir Bhuttos cruel murder in Liaquat Bagh again with the crime scene being so carefully sanitised within minutes of her killing?
Which reminds me. Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist Ron Suskinds just-published book The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism says President Musharraf phoned Benazir in Dubai and told her, Your security is based on the state of our relationship.
What sort of threat was that? And are we to read into it that Benazir was murdered precisely because she had become distanced from Musharraf in so many ways, even telling friends that she was a marked woman and had been betrayed, not only by Musharraf but by the Americans too?
Why then are they asking Musharraf be allowed to have an honourable stay in Pakistan? Shouldnt the charges enumerated above not form part of the 100-page chargesheet the coalition is preparing against the man? Charges ranging from cheating as a so-called gentleman cadet to threatening a murdered leader that she would be murdered if she strayed too far from the straight and narrow?
Stop press: on a TV programme called Such to Yeh Hai on Monday one of the participants said that parliamentarians would vote according to their zameer on Musharrafs impeachment motion, and another asked if they would not vote according to General Zameer, referring to the infamous former director general of the ISIs internal wing who was instrumental in manufacturing the PPP Patriots and other such dastardly stuff.
When it came my turn I asked a question of the present government that if it was serious about the impeachment why was it that the chief of the ISI, a man considered close to the generals family, was still in his job. Especially when it was more than well known that the ISI buys/threatens people to change their political loyalties. The entire reference to the ISI was edited out of the programme.
So much for a free media.
P.S. What was the bounty on Dr Afia Siddquis head and who pocketed it please? Could someone tell us?
Posted by: john frum ||
08/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: ed ||
08/13/2008 8:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hindi english, is my guess.
And yes, that's a recognized dialect. For the most part it's quite readable by speakers of standard English but there are a lot of usages we find overly formal and some vocabulary that is opaque to most Americans or Brits.
#4
He is Pakistani.
Probably a native Urdu or (more likely) Punjabi speaker. His English will be similar to that used by Indians though.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/13/2008 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What a rambling string of sentences put end to end. They don't make a damned bit of sense to me, I'd cut them off and throw them to the dogs if it were me, supply road be damned. You can't tell me there is no other way to get out from under these useless, two faced turncoats. We've pumped money into that country in such obscene amounts that we should be ashamed to admit it. And what's it gone to? We don't even know, we never even asked to see the books probably.
I confess I had forgotten about the U.N. World Conference against Racism, in Durban, South Africa, on Sept. 8, 2001. It turned so quickly into a racist, anti-Semitic hate-fest that Secretary of State Colin Powell stood up and walked out. The indignant commentary was just getting started when the Sept. 11 attacks swept the coverage away. The event was largely forgotten.
I bring it up now because they're at it again. The United Nations has scheduled a sequel, dubbed Durban II, to take place in Geneva next spring. (This time, Durban's city fathers refused to host it.) And if the 2001 event proved to be an embarrassment for the United Nations and the world, the next one promises to be a shameful travesty that will light up cable news, late-night TV talk shows and multimedia blogs for weeks. Worse, the event is certain to cleave an even deeper divide between the Arab states and the rest of the world. It's preordained. Consider what happened just a few days ago, as reported by the Web site Eye on the UN.
The conference's planning chairman invited Iran to join his inner circle - the "friends of the chair" - to add Iranian wisdom to the topics at hand: preventing racism and promoting human rights. Why Iran? Well, the answer will almost certainly leave you asking: What were they thinking?
The planning committee chairman is none other than Libya. The rapporteur ... Cuba. And the new vice chair, Iran. Several Western states are unranked members. But the leaders and their allies are running roughshod over everyone else. These countries have a clear agenda: to batter Israel and the United States and ram through proclamations decrying insults to Islam.
The European Union proposed to discuss freedom of expression. Speaking for the leadership, Egypt declared that freedom of expression is "political in nature and not grounded in objectivity." As a result, discussion of the subject is "not acceptable." The EU gave up.
In Cairo this summer, the Arab League began work on what it calls a "guidebook" on permissible "media terminology for Arab causes" to replace "false and defamed terms" - like, perhaps, freedom of expression? Many Arab states, including Egypt, say they favor freedom of expression - except when it infringes on government prerogatives or Islamic doctrine or any other subject the government doesn't want to talk about. I have firsthand knowledge of that.
Working in Egypt in June, I visited Burullus, a small town on the northern coast. After interviewing a few people about recent riots over a price increase for bread, I set out to interview people in food stores. We stopped at one butcher shop and asked to speak to the owner. He looked over my shoulder, out to the street, then simply shook his head and turned away. Heading back to the car, we spotted an Egyptian secret police officer - they are unmistakable - calling in our license plate number over a radio. Moments later, my translator got a phone call from a local friend. The police had issued an arrest warrant - for trying to talk to the butcher. My driver turned off the road and hid on the beach behind some fishing boats. After awhile we took an eastern road, not the highway south to Cairo. We escaped. So much for freedom of expression in Egypt.
The United Nations' much-maligned Human Rights Council is organizing Durban II, so it's small wonder that the planning is proceeding as it has. In a recent council session, a speaker asked to bring up a particularly egregious human rights problem: genital mutilation of women. Egypt objected mightily, demanding: "We will not discuss issues related to Shariah law; this will not happen." He thundered on, joined by a colleague from Pakistan, until the item was dropped.
Shariah, of course, is canonical law based on the teachings of the Quran and the traditions of Muhammad. I wasn't aware that it advocated genital mutilation.
Like it or not, this conference will happen. The best course is to ignore it. My guess is that the EU came to that conclusion and decided it had better things to do than get into a dogfight about freedom of speech. The United States, thankfully, has ignored all of this so far. The next administration will have to decide whether to participate. Canada already has announced it will not attend. As Jason Kenney, a secretary of state, put it, Durban II "has gone completely off the rails."
Joel Brinkley is a professor of journalism at Stanford University and a former foreign policy correspondent for the New York Times. E-mail Insight at insight@sfchronicle.com. E-mail Brinkley at brinkley@foreignmatters.com
#1
This is a great piece of investigative reporting. A blogger putting the MSM to shame by exposing the deceit and deception behind a major element of the global warming case.
#3
As an Atmospheric Scientist, I am ashamed to be associated with Mann, Amman and Wahl. They are dishonest fools who represent all that is wrong with in the world of peer review and scientific fraud. I am not an AGW-ite, only skeptical of the mechanism and processes. There is ample evidence with environmental impacts (e.g., ocean acidification, coral bleaching, permafrost melt, etc.). The problem with these GW zealots is that scientific debate is clouded by the politics.
#4
Compare wid BIGNEWSNETWORK > THE COMING COLLAPSE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT [Peak Oil is Now]; + EARTH MAY HAVE ONLY A LITTLE TIME LEFT TO PREVENT THE MASS EXTINCTION OF ITS SPECIES.
*TOPIX > SO LONG GLOBAL WARMING - LONG LIVE PEAK OIL!
#5
Don't worry, the GW thought police will be by to pick him up soon so we don't have to listen to his facts poison anymore. He will be re-educated to the proper way of seeing climate change.
#7
I've posted this before, but it's a good link as well about the stupid hockey stick graph. So instead of waiting for someone to ask for it again, here you go..
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.
