NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia - Russia and Egypt signed an agreement on Tuesday opening the way for Russian firms to bid for lucrative contracts to build nuclear power plants in Egypt.
Finally, a retirement home for Al-Baradei ...
The nuclear energy deal was signed after Russian President Vladimir Putin and Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak met near the Russian capital for talks which also covered Moscows plan to host a Middle East peace conference. Egypt, in cooperation with its international partners and the International Atomic Energy Agency is going to develop this (nuclear weapons energy) sector, including through the agreement we have just signed, Mubarak told reporters.
Egypt wants up to four nuclear weapons power stations and an international tender to build the first of them may come as early as this year. Tuesdays agreement clears the way for Russias state nuclear contractor to bid for work.
The Kremlin is lobbying hard for contracts to build nuclear power plants abroad because it sees the industry as the type of high-technology sector it must develop to reduce its dependence on oil and gas exports. Russia is already building nuclear reactors worth $1.5 billion to $2 billion apiece in Iran, China and India.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
FOX NEWS [last weekend]> IIRC, I believe FOX reported that approxi 16? ME Muslim nations desire to have their own working CIVILIAN/DOMESTIC NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS by Year 2015[?], as per UNIAEA Report???
#2
Egypt might want to think long and hard about having the RUSSIANS building their nuke power plants. Seems I recall at least a half-dozen accidents with Russian nuke plants, plus a half-dozen aboard nuke-powered vessels. They MAY have gotten all the bugs out of the designs, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/26/2008 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
WAFF.com > YNETNEWS/STRATEGYPAGE - ISRAEL COUNTS ITS LOSSES FROM ARAB MISSLES + REPORT: ISRAEL TO BE BOMBARDED BY IRANIAN-SYRIAN MISSLES IN NEXT WAR. Nutshell - you name it, Israel may be surrounded and attacked with Milyuuuhns and Zilyuuuhns of same. ISRAEL HOWEVER, CAN NOT, SHOULD NOT, MUST NOT, DARE NOT, and BETTER NOT etc. RETALIATE IN KIND, D *** NG IT, OR ELSE???
#7
Old Patriot, the Russians will present them with a turn-key operation. China will give them the plans with notations in Modern Chinese. If you were an Egyptian, which would you deem wiser to accept?
The police chief of Palomas, Mexico, has requested political asylum in the United States. The Luna County Sheriff's Department and the U.S. Border Patrol say Emilio Perez came to the port of entry at Columbus late Tuesday night.
He told authorities his two officers have fled and he does not know their whereabouts. The agent-in-charge of the Border Patrol station in Deming, Rick Moody, says Perez is in the protection of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Authorities have reported an increase in drug-related violence in Palomas, where at least four people have been fatally shot in recent weeks.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
CHINA wants its army to oversee the Australian leg of the Olympic torch relay to ensure protests do not mar the event.
The move, which has been rebuffed by the Australian Federal Police, comes as Beijing reels from an embarrassing relay launch in Athens when human rights activists hijacked the event.
China has responded by radically cutting back relay legs in cities where it expects more trouble, including San Francisco and Paris.
It is understood Beijing has deep concerns that protesters will turn the Canberra leg of the relay on April 24 into another public relations disaster.
The Canberra leg will feature several Australian Olympic superstars including Ian Thorpe, Jodie Henry, Petria Thomas, Marjorie Jackson-Nelson and Ron Clarke.
"We have explained to the Chinese Embassy that people have a democratic right in Australia to stage demonstrations and people are free to demonstrate when the torch does arrive but we would hope that demonstrations are peaceful and won't disrupt the relay in any way," AOC spokesman Mike Tancred said.
Posted by: john frum ||
03/26/2008 07:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
PLA down under?
Didn't realize that Australia was part of the motherland....
Posted by: john frum ||
03/26/2008 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The PRC sez: "All your Olympics are belong to us!"
#3
We have explained to the Chinese Embassy that people have a democratic right in Australia to stage demonstrations
The Chinese don't care about that, not one bit. This whole Olympics thing was supposed to be about China joining the community of nations as an equal, and demonstrating its willingness to enter the 21st century. What's happening instead is that the world is seeing China's true face. Government officials are accustomed to their words being followed without question.
#6
The Chicoms can't heavy hand this. It will blow up in their faces. I hope their Potemkin Village Oleo-Lympics spectacle keeps unravelling. Serves them right.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/26/2008 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Maybe the Aussies should have agreed.
With the proviso that the Australian Army would in turn "oversee" any demonstrations during the Olympics in China.
With a live satellite camera crew. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/26/2008 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/26/2008 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#12
San Francisco torch run should route past Nancy Pelosi's mansion... Oh wait, can't do that because Cindy and the pink eyes are sleeping in her driveway.
#13
And Cindy et al. would cheer their Communist heroes.
Hmmm. Actually that might be a good thing, if it got broadcast on the evening news - it would expose the anti war types as the Communist dupes they are.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
03/26/2008 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#14
This might throw some light on the request:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/did_chinas_cash_flow_to_rudd/#commentsmore
Posted by: Aussie Mike ||
03/26/2008 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
Note the multiple earthquakes in western China. Zoom in. The zone is south and east of Hotan, China.
Now use Google Earth to look up Hotan, China. Zoom in, check the orange dot to the south east. See the note? An 'Interesting Village' indeed.
A wide riverbed between two mountain ranges pockmarked by blast craters. Blast craters that look as nicely spaced as those of the nuclear test site in Mercury, Nevada. With events during the past week providing enough yield to register as a 7.2 earthquake.
#9
GUAM > just had quakin' early this morning shortly after 0600A. Officially, its a "5.4" but its initial tremblin' felt bwtn 6-7.0 magn - FIRST AFTERSHOCK, however, did feel like a FIVEER-PLUS, SECOND was mag THREE-OR-UNDER. I did obeserve CONCRETE RIPPLES in certain spots on a side the local PDN/DNA News Building here in Hagatna, facing the Guam Public Library, during the above big one.
The iconic PDN/DNA Building has been here in Hagatna since the early 1970's - I've told local Restaurant patrons that, iff they know whom the current owner or company-landlord is, for same to have the building checked for potential WEAK SPOTS in case of future event.
#12
I typed in "Hotan, China", and got "Hetian", a village in Tibet on the southwest edge of the central plateau.
From all my time in the Air Force, I know most of China's nuke testing was done around Lop Nor, in the Gobi desert.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/26/2008 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Waitasec. Nukes make a nice little poof underground, but that is nothing compared to the energy released in a 7.2 quake. Remember that the Richter scale is base-10 logarithmic scale.
That is, you can reproduce a 1.0 earthquake with 70 lbs. of TNT. A 2.0 earthquake with 1 metric TON of TNT. A 3.0 with 32 metric tons. A 4.0 with 1 kiloton of TNT.
5.0 == 32 kilotons.
6.0 == 1 megaton.
7.0 == 50 megatons, the size of the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever built. (magnitude seen on seismographs reduced because it detonated 4 km in the atmosphere.)
A 7.2 would be the largest continent-cracker ever created. I can't even imagine how deep underground that sucker would have to be for it to not break through.
#14
Yep. Well, so OK.
More than 10 measured near surface quakes, in the last week, ranging from 2.7-7.2, in a geographic zone which imagery suggests has been used as a giant fart pan. Details reported from independent sources and collaborated by players in this council.
Oh, and the US 'admits' to sending nuclear triggers to Taiwan, just this week. Huh.
Maybe it's not nukes. Maybe they just punched a hole thru the crust.
#15
Moose. Look at the details.
Depth 14.2 miles (poorly constrained)
Location uncertainty horizontal +/- 6.6 km (4.1 miles); depth +/- 24.8 km (15.4 miles)
It wasn't a crust cracker. The measurement error puts it on the surface. Wonder which way the wind was blowing.
TARBES, France - French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged China on Tuesday to show responsibility over the unrest in Tibet and refused to rule out a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games. I dont close the door to any option, but I think its more prudent to reserve my responses to concrete developments in the situation, Sarkozy said, when asked about a possible boycott. All options are open but I appeal to the sense of responsibility of Chinese authorities, he said.
France has called for an end to the violence, in which Tibets government-in-exile says 140 people have been killed but like other western governments, it has so far rejected the idea of boycotting the games.
But do let's keep that door open ...
Sarkozy said China had to understand worldwide concern over the situation and he said action would depend on how its leaders responded. I want dialogue to begin and I will graduate my response according to the response given by Chinese authorities, he said.
Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has called on China to let foreign media into Tibet and on Tuesday called for an end to Chinas repression of dissent in Tibet.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military mistakenly shipped four fuses for nuclear missiles to Taiwan in 2006, the Pentagon said on Tuesday, adding that the parts have been returned to U.S. custody.
As Seafarious would say, "whoopsies".
The military was supposed to ship helicopter batteries to Taiwan but instead sent fuses used as part of the trigger mechanism on missiles. No nuclear material was shipped to Taiwan, Pentagon officials said.
The United States has notified China, which maintains a state of war with Taiwan and is modernizing its military to close the technology gap with Taiwans mainly U.S. weapons.
The fuse shipment marks the second embarrassing misplacement of nuclear or nuclear-related equipment announced by the Pentagon in the past year. The Defense Department has ordered the Navy and Air Force to take inventory of all nuclear and nuclear-associated equipment and material and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered an investigation into the fuse incident, said Ryan Henry, principle deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.
It was not crystal clear exactly what happened, he said.
Crystal clear to me. Taiwan now has a copy of the fuses. Then we got the fuses back for our inventory. How convenient.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Some shipping 'errors' to Japan would be helpful...
Posted by: john frum ||
03/26/2008 7:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hmmm. Taiwan couldn't have any use for nuclear fuses could it? Anyone? China?
#4
"helicopter batteries", "nuclear fuses", heyyy anybody could make that mistake. They're right on the shelf next to each other, plus they are spelled nearly the same.....er....
but we got em back, although disassembled, so no harm - no foul
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Ahh, that's nothing. Wait unil we mistakenly send cruise missiles to Iran.
Experience the excitement of terminal guidance.
Thrill as seekers lock on to their targets.
Savor the finely worded diplomacy of our almost sincere apologies.
Oops!
#6
From yesterday's article it sounded like the fuse was used on MIRVs to separate the missile shroud or the warheads from the missile bus. Nothing to do with nuclear triggering.
Posted by: ed ||
03/26/2008 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#7
FOX NEWS this AM > China has expressed its "STRONG DISPLEASURE" at the USA for this incident and has formally demanded a full investigation.
FREEREPUBLIC-NET Posters > TAIWAN already has six = a number of working civilian nuke energy plants, any one of which is potens capable of produc enriched nucmats for weapons ala JAPAN. POSTERS - IFF TAIWAN DOESN'T HAVE ANY VITAL FUSE OR TRIGGER, ETC. DESIGNS ALREADY, THEY HAVE 'EM NOW SINCE 2005 IFF NOT EARLIER, AND NOT NECESSARILY VV US-ONLY SUBTERFUGE EITHER.
Also from FREEREPUBLIC-NET POSTERS > just as RRUSSIA fears spread of Radical Islamism both domestically and within CENTRAL ASIA, CHINA FEARS LACK OF CHIN HEGEMONIC CONTROL AND COMPETITION vv MUSLIM UIGHURS + OTHER ETHIC MINORITIES, + ITS SMALLER ASIAN NEIGHBORS, e.g. Myanmar, Tibet, Bhutan, Vietnam, even agz Pakistan and North Korea.
#8
I've been out for a while, but am I the only one who finds this *whoopsies* awfully convenient in light of China's shinanigans over Tibet? It appears we won't outright boycott the Olympics over the Chicom's crackdown, but maybe some *mistakes* to convenient allies to send a message?
Or am I just being cynical because Bush is now a lame duck for the next 10 months? *tee-hee*
Posted by: BA ||
03/26/2008 21:36 Comments ||
Top||
My reaction to the article was that someone was trying very hard to convince himself that the molehill out in the back yard is some kind of mountain. I've never gotten the impression that Dr. Rice was interested in electoral politics. Click through and read it and let me know (in the comments box) if you come to the same conclusion or not.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/26/2008 16:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She seemed vastly more interested in becoming NFL commish. Goddell seems pretty young, though, so maybe she had a change o' heart.
#4
shes a real christian, though, aint she? might help with the theocon crowd, without scaring centrists like me. Wont help with the supply siders, but are they gonna like Obama? And the ultraneocons, the folks like here who think Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan are RINO traitors, hes not gonna reach them anyway.
Also that would free him up to go after Obama hard on stuff like Rev Wright, without being called racist.
#7
she's been proven as a state dept squish, and won't do anything to alleviate conservative concerns over Maverick. Given his speech today, he seems to think he's got the Right with nowhere to go but with him, and is sliding left to capture independents. A little early, Johnny-boy. I want a conservative (and a lot younger) VP that I can trust to balance McAmnesty's worst impulses
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Candidate McCain seems pretty strongly pro-Israel. Would he be happy with a vice president who sees the Palestinians as dark-skinned victims of the Israeli KKK? Would she?
#9
If HIllary won the nomination for the Dems a Condi VP slot would certainly confuse many Democratic voters who already seem somewhat positive towards McCain.
#10
Dr. Rice is a "Vulcan", a brain. And while it is not obvious what she has done at State, the media assumed "turn around", from her being a seriously hard-assed National Security Adviser to suddenly becoming a squishy SecState, is a stretch.
Not that we will ever know what she really did at State, though. She follows orders.
However, she would be terrific as an appointed VP, but less so as an elected VP. An elected VP is to balance the ticket, so McCain would want to choose a popular conservative, most likely a governor. It would not really be his choice, but it matters less because the VP is usually unimportant.
But, if he selected someone who was like a Medieval Pope, who would die 10 minutes after taking office, Rice would be perfect. Neither the House or Senate would dare to refuse the nomination, though a few, *ahem*, niggardly Democrats would try.
I was rooting for Dick Cheney to step down during Bush's second term, for the last year, claiming health reasons, just for the pure political enjoyment of seeing Rice as VP. But, I guess, it was not to be. Pity.
#11
Rice has completely underwhelmed me as Sec of State. I think her stock has fallen to the point that her only positives are her gender and race. Not a strong choice, rather a response-in-kind to the dumocrat candidates. A pox on all of them.
#13
The idea of CR to balance/confuse any Donk race issues is a good one, but have to agree with limpwrist SecState job..... More appealing than any other Trunk however IMHO
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain, outlining his foreign policy positions on the heels of an overseas trip, is renewing his call for the United States to work more collegially with democratic nations and live up to its duties as a world leader. "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed," the Republican said in prepared remarks a few days after returning from the Middle East and Europe. "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies." For the billionth time, please provide specific examples where the US failed to listen to "allied" views that offered plausible concrete alternatives to US policies, or we did "whatever we want" in some arrogant or cavalier manner where plausible concrete alternatives were available. And, BTW, WTF would be the "collective will of our democratic allies"?? "Will"? Is he effing joking?
What matters here is that the Euros feel aggrieved, not that they have a reason to feel that way. McCain makes nice early in the campaign and takes away a potential talking point that the Dhimmicrats otherwise would use in the fall. This is about domestic politics, pure and simple.
The pitch, scheduled for an appearance Wednesday before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, is a fresh acknowledgment by the GOP's likely presidential nominee that the United States' standing on the world stage has been tarnished and that the country has an image problem after eight years of President Bush at the helm. There we have it. Don't know if McCain said this, but the tone of his speech and some of the words reported here are predictable fodder for media twerps to once again roll out the most tired, most mindless, most revealing myth of the post-9/11 world - the "tarnished" US image. Atta boy, Maverick.
Again, right or wrong, the trope is that somehow the U.S. is out of sync with its allies. We all know why, but McCain doesn't win an election pointing that out.
Critics at home and abroad have accused Bush of employing a go-it-alone foreign policy in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks when the administration spurned international calls for caution and led the invasion into Iraq. Democrats have derided McCain as offering the same foreign policies as Bush, whose support is at a low point as the public craves change.
But McCain, mindful of a need to lay out his own vision for the future and distance himself from the unpopular Republican president, voices a more collaborative approach. "The United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone," McCain said. Instead, the country must lead by attracting others to its cause, demonstrating the virtues of freedom and democracy, defending the rules of an international civilized society, and creating new international institutions to advance peace and freedom, he said. And where, Einstein, have we "led by virtue of" our power alone? Is that a particularly inept way of saying something stupid, such as we can't do what we need to do if we are forced to do it mostly by ourselves? Or would he care to offer specific examples? So I suppose actually applying the provisions of the Geneva Convention - even, because of a farcical and rogue Supreme Court, inventing US obligations never constitutionally agreed to by the executive or the Senate, and obligations to absurdly implausible interpretations of plain treaty language to boot - instead of tearing them up by declaring that all outlaw belligerents qualify for their privileges and protections, doesn't qualify as defending the rules of civilized society?
"If we lead by shouldering our international responsibilities and pointing the way to a better and safer future for humanity ... it will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism," said McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war who has decades of experience in the Senate on foreign affairs. Get this idiot out of here before I slap him. This s**t isn't just infuriating, and inexcusable - there IS a practical, pernicious impact on the real world. McCain's adoption of this idiocy further subsidizes the cowardice and incompetence of "allies" who are the ones who need to reform their ways, and of course only deepens the erroneous popular perception that there is a whit of merit to this obnoxious "mainstream" nonsense.
McCain isn't necessarily adopting it, he's just stroking it enough to set it aside.
#1
Wrong on all counts. Talking points like this have zero traction with any voters that McCain has any chance to get. An intelligent, factually sound, non-delusional set of talking points, on the other hand, would both attract realists and informed folks from the center on to the right, and assure them that there is more to McCain than resolve on Iraq mixed with lots of pernicious silliness on other foreign policy matters (and an even more whiplash-inducing mix on domestic issues).
And then there's the small matter of national interest. Endorsing, adopting - anything short of eviscerating and disposing of - the pernicious myths on display here materially damage the country and the cause of civilization. The public, here and elsewhere, is largely misinformed and misguided, but in a way that can be repaired. THIS c***pola exacerbates the problem. There's a struggle going on not just here but in "allied" countries - I worked with several allied military officers in the sandbox, and they were all very focused on stuff like this, because the lack of political will in their countries was bound up with these delusions. McCain mouthing this nonsense - and this will be what the world hears from him on these matters - undercuts the realists in real allied countries.
But maybe I ought to reconsider. Years and years of silence and bizarre dereliction by the Bush admin. in educating, building a base of public support and understanding, correcting the record, and upholding the honor of the US and its servicemembers have only made things much harder - yet it hasn't actually caused us to lose a war (yet).
"Stroking it to set it aside" is a foolish move that reflects a lack of judgement on both the substance and the politics of the matter. It also does not take into account the Beltway mediocrity that permeates McCain and his advisors - mostly followers, not leaders, and certainly not strategists. This whole thing is a wrenching reminder, especially to those who have been exposed directly to McCain over the years (long before anyone mentioned him as a prez candidate), of just how disastrous this presidential cycle already is, even before the general.
#2
Oy. Look, Obama is saying we need to talk to our enemies - to Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Ahmahdinajed,Assad and Kim. McCain is saying we need to talk to our allies, to Brown and Sarkozy and Merkel and Harper. If you guys think there wasnt tension between the US and even the friendlier of our allies during the Bush admin,esp when Rummy was still in office, you havent been paying attention. and if you think we dont need no stinking allies, well youre far more removed from reality than even the Obamaniks.
#3
" instead of tearing them up by declaring that all outlaw belligerents qualify for their privileges and protections, doesn't qualify as defending the rules of civilized society?"
Yes, if we stop torturing outlaw belligerents, it will help us in our relations with allies and neutrals, and will likely gain us more than we get by torturing them. Whats so complicated about that? and yeah, it DOES appeal to the center, who dont like torture, and who dont think all the Euros are eevil socialist "tranzis" and arent going to be convinced by folks spouting hatred and playing loose with the facts.
#7
The answer to that, liberalhawk, is I think that people see it as one more in a dangerous series of pre-emptive surrenders against barbarians who have no scruples in torturing and killing innocents themselves.
#8
I don't think we should torture (which we don't, but what the hell) non-uniformed combatants captured on the battlefield.
We should shoot them on the spot - as required allowed by the Geneva Conventions.
How could anyone complain?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/26/2008 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I'll bite: I have absolutely no problem with executing on the spot, or extracting needed info by whatever means necessary in the interest of our national security, or safety of our troops. These dirtbags are NOT entitled to a lawyer, criminal court, 3 squares a day or continued breathing.
Fling away, oh superior-morals one
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#10
by the way, before you do, this will be the 5,932nd thread we've argued that issue without convincing anyone that they should change their opinion, nor does it raise my esteem for your high-horse of rectitude. I'd call it naive at best.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#11
See also WAFF.com > MCCAIN VIDEO - NATO FROM THE BALTIC TO THE BLACK SEAS???
Apologies in advance, but you sound like a Washington Post reporter - here. McCain wants to talk to our allies. Uh - you mean, we DON'T currently talk to our allies? Surely you don't mean that - but then what could your point possibly be? We consult with allies and near-allies and neutrals and even some adversaries all the time. Heck, in Iraq our allies are hard not to talk to, seeing as they usually hold command positions such as deputy CG of MNF-I, ops chief of MNF-I, and the like. And I hear tell that in Afghanistan things are even more ally-ish - we even call it a NATO operation, while not laughing.
And we're talking here about military operations, contributions thereto - in law enforcement and intel, there of course are disputes, but the US and its true allies (and some fairly dicey non-allies) work very closely, and have before but especially since 9/11. But that only reinforces MY point - we work with and talk with our true allies constantly, and its ridiculous to endorse the myth that they lack a voice, or that we get always our way, or that WE are the ones who should be re-considering our ways.
McCain parroted one of the most baseless and annoying myths regarding consulting allies and "go-it-alone". It's nonsense, and his inclusion of that crap in his speech is indefensible.
So tension between Rummy's DOD and "allies" is prima facie evidence of .... what, exactly? We'd have to examine each case in detail to see the merits, right? But why is the existence of tensions in even truly allied relationships an issue, per se? I seem to recall a few small problems in the US-British relationship during the The Big One, yet that all seemed to turn out all right.
But this gets to the heart of the problem: the assumption that the existence of disagreements ipso facto means the US is doing or saying something wrong. What idiocy - especially in the current situation. The US was dead right on the ABM Treaty, dead right on Kyoto, and so on. Not even close calls. As I said in my original comment - where are the plausible, concrete alternatives to US policies? Oh - and we'll even make special considerations here, since in most cases the US is the one enduring most of the risk and almost ALL of the costs, regardless of the course chosen.
As for "not needing no stinking allies", you've got it precisely backwards. Those like me who have had enough of this sophomoric Beltway and MSM crap - and are appalled to see McCain echoing it - are fervently desirous of allies - real allies. And we are in touch with reality, so we know that the "allied" contribution to our efforts, with a very few exceptions, is pathetic (speaking here again of military ops and the open geopolitical commitments they require).
And it gets worse. The few allies with any ability to even contribute military power are seeing a decline in their already modest capacities. The media search desperately and in vain for any widespread morale problems in the very busy US military - but they wouldn't have to do much to find deep discontent, even despair, in allied services such as the British. Or frustration and humiliation in the services of many European allies, where the guys want to pull their weight, and are tortured by their homelands' departure from internationally responsible policies. I saw these myself, over and over and over, directly and in person in Iraq.
This is the other disastrously incompetent aspect of McCain's comments, and the positions it implies. The next president should be challenging the allies to regain their dignity and integrity and do something - not indulge their arrogant and outrageous carping from the sidelines. The editorial staff at Le Monde may warm to some of the silliness McCain tosses their way, but the serious people in European militaries would be much more heartened by an American president who challenged their polities and leaderships to shoulder their responsibilities.
Oh, and BTW, the preposterously inane stuff that comes from Obama and his advisors, or the slightly less silly stuff from Hillary, aren't the point. Neither of them will be president, and even if they were to be president, they wouldn't do 99% of what they say.
In your second comment, LH, you veer off into something I didn't address - but I could well be to blame as I employed a long and clumsy construction in saying what I said. My comment about the Geneva Conventions was that the US is upholding them, and those who demand their application to all humanoid bipeds - regardless of behavior - are the ones shredding them. The Conventions are an extremely elaborate, painstakingly constructed web of obligations and privileges - not a generic statement of good intentions. Stateless global terrorists do not qualify as POWs, in fact they are outcasts and criminals under the Conventions, and may in fact be subject to treatment as dire as summary execution, as my eager comment-mates mention. But summary execution isn't the issue. McCain made a clear allusion to perhaps the most outrageous - and consequential - slander and distortion of the past few years, namely that the US is bending the rules of civilized societies. That slander centers around the overall treatment of the terrorist detainees (Gitmo, indefinite detention, non-POW status, etc.). It's 100% inaccurate, it in effect tears up the Conventions by insisting that their provisions be given no meaning, and it has pernicious impact on the will of the US and others to effectively counter the threat.
Torture is not the issue. And if we make it the issue, the "moral" objections of you and others are dubious, at best, on the merits, if torture is defined down to include water-boarding. But torture is NOT the main issue in this area, where the "tarnished image" crap started years before the water-boarding controversy even began.
I'm afraid your wheels all come off at the end there. Where in my comment were the words "evil socialist tranzis"? If you don't understand the disastrous ongoing collapse in European ability to participate seriously in international security activities (which collapse is equal parts evaporating political will and related degradation of the military establishment), you might look to educate yourself.
Did I spout hatred? Don't think so. Yes I'm pissed off - way beyond pissed off - that McCain's drivel is what we get after the silence of the Bush years. For good, substantive, reasons, very partially outlined here.
American shoulders are carrying far too much of the burden - all the while being spit at by those whose burdens are being carried, here and abroad - and McCain's brilliant idea is to parrot some tired, empty, slanderous b.s. instead of leading, issuing some challenges, and calling spades spades.
And remember, would-be political consultants who appear not to have actually been close to that process before: just as those extremist cranks who think rule of law and the constitution are actually important components of our society must vote for McCain because "they have nowhere else to go," many others in the center who are not devotees of Beltway mythologies and who care about national security "have nowhere else to go" this fall. And many of them would understandably be far more energized and attracted by some original, painful, needed challenges to conventional wisdom and the failures of our allies than they are by these borrowed phrases from the NYT or Le Monde.
I heard some more snippets of the speech on the radio. McCain seems to think that during war-time some simple and important truths must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of stupid tropes, syrupy sentimental caveats, and genuflections to discredited and illogical aspirations.
We'll all be fine and things will work out - but jeebus, what a pathetic crop of presidential choices we have (and that went for the pre-primary situation, too, with the possible exception of Rudy - I said "possible").
#13
eager comment-mates? LOL - I'm happy if I'm included in your much more lucid and well-argued position.
Frank
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I'm still hoping for Duncan Hunter as VP to bring sanity as real conservative values to the ticket. He'd also resign if forced by Maverick to defend the worst JMcC poitions...another reason why he won't get picked. I did, however, give Hunter's USMC Capt. son, Duncan D. Hunter, a contribution this week as Rep for my district...
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 21:09 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Bravo, Verlaine! Well considered, well-written and practically irrefutable.
LH, I'd recommend Velcro for reattaching that glutimus maximus of yours Verlaine just handed you. Since I'm sure that you'll be getting it kicked off again here at the 'Burg, I don't think you should use anything too permanent for reattachment.
#17
Frank G and Skunky, thanks for your kind words. Nothing personal against LH, not at all. In fact while I've not been as regular a reader here lately as I once was, I generally find LH's comments to be serious. Not that his today were not - but I admit to being way beyond exasperated with baseless assertions that never, never get addressed and refuted by the administration. And now the likely next prez makes him mark by adopting some of them. As AP says over at HotAir - heartache ......
Anyway, LH, apologies if anything I wrote seemed nasty or personal. I used to break goalie sticks over the net when I was younger and felt I had blown a save I could have made (and those sticks were expensive ....). So there's some history of lashing out here.
#18
the United States' standing on the world stage has been tarnished and that the country has an image problem after eight years of President Bush at the helm.
I love the response Verlaine. And, is it just me, or should we really be listening to "reporters" who can't even tell how long Bush has been in office (7 years/2 months)? Or is that "new-fangled" math too hard for CNN to grasp?
Posted by: BA ||
03/26/2008 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Verlaine, LH is a respected (for good reason) and knowledgeable (see his posts) commenter here - for quite a while (unwilling to check the archives - it makes me feel old). He's got thick skin. I'm willing to call him on BS when it occurs (and it does) - but your post was a work of of logic and subtle argument...I doubt I'll master the first, and never the second
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 22:09 Comments ||
Top||
#20
My exposure to military in allied countries is less extensive than Verlaine's but I can echo his point: Brit etc. military are exhausted, demoralized and stretched to the breaking point. If you think public opinion/MSM is a burden for our guys and gals, it's an anvil dragging those good people down. A serious concern because while we will painfully recover, the Brits under Brown are already dissolving their starved military into the Euroforce.
#21
Yes, if we stop torturing outlaw belligerents, it will help us in our relations with allies and neutrals, and will likely gain us more than we get by torturing them. Whats so complicated about that? and yeah, it DOES appeal to the center, who dont like torture, and who dont think all the Euros are eevil socialist "tranzis" and arent going to be convinced by folks spouting hatred and playing loose with the facts.
When you're giving people who run around in civilian garb and killing others for political gain the same rights as civilized soldiers, you are actually punishing both the civilians who are being extorted and furthermore demonstrating that you really only keep your own soldiers from inflicting terror on the civilian population because you hate them and want them to lose.
The Geneva conventions weren't originally invented to protect soldiers. The people who wrote them couldn't have cared LESS about how soldiers were treated. They cared about keeping the civilians out of the conflict. The way they worked out was that soldiers who played by the rules got certain protections while those who hid behind civilians or terrorized civilians didn't.
It wasn't about the rights of the soldiers at all, that was merely a means to an end.
Al Qaeda and Iran's surrogates have both killed a lot more civilians in this war than we've killed combatants, and that's counting the ones on the field of battle itself.
And finally, I think there is a bit of "bait and switch" in the whole discussion, and that's why it makes the rest of us angry. One side talks about how "we" need to outlaw torture, but when it gets down to the details they want us to treat all these guys like POW's instead of unlawful combatants.
Which is equivalent, mostly, to saying the other side has the "right" to target civilians but we don't.
Which is (for example) how Syria got to use the population of Lebanon as human shields for its rocket attacks into Israel. So don't say it doesn't work, because it's worked horribly well.
Doing away with the idea of the Unlawful Combatant _legitimizes_ terror tactics.
#22
Beautifully argued, Verlaine. BUT, every presidential candidate that I can remember promised to consult more with allies and regain their -- or the world's -- respect. Clinton campaigned on that, and so did Bush fil. Each one was firmly believe by those who voted for them and by the Europeans, all convinced the previous president had squandered world love and respect.
This is required ritual posturing, and takes away a talking point.
#23
Very well said, Abdominal! I was too briefly trying to make the same point. The Conventions grew out of an attempt to protect non-combatants. Naturally the first step there is/was to define same (as well as places that ipso facto had protected status - hospitals, churches, etc.). Then later they got to trying to regulate warfare itself a bit, WRT treatment of POWs (definitions again), wounded, certains kinds of weapons technologies, etc. Which tended to protect combatants in some ways.
As McCain himself knows to his sorrow, unfortunately the implicit quid-pro-quo in treatment of POWs - formalized by the Conventions - has done little to protect the POWs of the US and other democracies, in practice. Somebody jump in here to add/correct, but the only belligerent to generally observe Geneva standards with our POWs was Nazi Germany. Imperial Japan was not a signatory.
This whole reciprocity thing hasn't, uh, exactly worked out. Which is why, when respectable people like Colin Powell et al with all sincerity say they want the US to be purer than pure in order to protect our own POWs, I sort of wince. First, such an approach to illegal combatants like AQ as Abdominal says is a body blow to the Conventions because it rewards totally (spectacularly) non-compliant individuals with the full protections and privileges (separate things) of compliant individuals (i.e., legit POWs). Second, uh - it doesn't work. Not even a little bit. Not at all. Ever. For obvious reasons.
Thus my wince.
But while I'm being utterly despondent about smart folks making gigantic stupid mistakes, let me mention George Shultz calling for total nukyler disarmament. Double yikes. One of the savviest and most decent guys ever to run parts of the big show, jumping on a painfully dumb bandwagon.
"We don't like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You're not talking to eachother, taking advantage that you're in this diverse community. Because sometimes it's easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance... That's America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 11:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Because sometimes it's easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions.
Yes, isn't it though, Michelle...
Posted by: Typical White Guy ||
03/26/2008 11:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well, it is hard to lose my stereotype of most liberals when she just keeps enforcing them.
#3
I WANT to rid myself of my own stereotypes and misconceptions but I'm too busy spreading AIDS and drugs among black people (to keep them down), and when I'm not doing that I'm working on an ethnic bomb that targets blacks and arabs. It's exhausting!!!
#4
You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms.
Hmmm, thinking back to my college days: all that separation was self-selected and self-enforced as I remember, except when the university encouraged it with the Ujaama (sp?) dorm for blacks.
#5
Up at UMass it was the New Africa House. And if you didn't want to live there, you could live on your own floor in some of the other dorms on a "Third World Corridor".
This was 30 friggin years ago.
#8
When I was an undergrad I was not allowed to walk into the Women's Center and these days I suspect I would not be able to use the shared meditation space as it would be jam packed with death cultists.
#9
The military didn't give you that option - you lived, worked, played together. It was a great time, and many of my friends were not like my (still segregated until after I graduated) high school. In the military, what separated you from the "others" was usually your job - you sat with your peers, because those were the people you had most in common with. I'd bet that 80% of the separations in most universities were more along the lines of your subject major than it was race or sex - especially sex.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/26/2008 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#10
OP,
in a lot of colleges you can add the greek dynamic and see how many people segregate themselves along those lines.
What she's really saying is white folks need to talk to folks of different skin colors because that would make us better people and less racist....she sounds awfully dumb to have such a higher learning pedigree.
Sen. Hillary Clinton said she "misspoke" last week when she gave a dramatic description of her arrival in Bosnia 12 years ago, recounting a landing under sniper fire.
Clinton was responding to a question Monday from the Philadelphia Daily News' editorial board about video footage of the event that contradicted her assertion that her group "ran with our heads down" from the plane to avoid sniper fire at the Tuzla Air Base.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for rival Sen. Barack Obama's campaign, said the Bosnia claim was part of "a growing list of instances in which Sen. Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking."
Clinton told the paper's editorial board it was a "minor blip."
"I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said.
In a radio interview that aired Tuesday, Clinton said she wasn't worried about the incident hurting her credibility.
"I have been in the public eye for many, many years, and this is something that I think happens to anybody," she told radio station KDKA in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
In a foreign policy speech last week at George Washington University, Clinton used the description of a dangerous arrival to bolster her argument that she has the foreign policy experience needed to be commander in chief.
She said when she arrived in Bosnia on March 25, 1996, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
But news video footage of her arrival at Tuzla shows Clinton, then the first lady, calmly walking from the rear ramp of a U.S. Air Force plane with her daughter, Chelsea, then 16, at her side. Both Clintons held their heads up and did not appear rushed.
The video shows Clinton spending several minutes talking with the group, including an 8-year-old Bosnian girl who presented her with a poem, and later greeting U.S. troops.
Clinton has mentioned the sniper fire at least twice earlier in the campaign, including in December in Dubuque, Iowa, before the caucuses in that state.
Clinton's campaign has made foreign policy experience a centerpiece of her effort to come back against Obama, whom she is trailing in delegates for the Democratic presidential nomination.
During Monday's editorial meeting -- in which Clinton was seeking the Daily News' endorsement ahead of Pennsylvania's April 22 primary -- she was asked about the apparent discrepancy. The newspaper reported her response:
"Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK -- because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke -- I didn't say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire -- that's not what I was told," she told the newspaper.
"I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can't, I can't rush by her, I've got to at least greet her -- so I greeted her, I took her stuff and then I left. Now that's my memory of it."
Meanwhile, as Clinton backpedaled from the description of her Bosnia trip, the senator from New York was keeping her focus on the economy with a town hall-style meeting Tuesday in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.
Clinton also pushed back against recent speculation by pundits and Democratic insiders that her chances of securing the nomination are quickly diminishing.
"I know there are some in Washington, and some in the media, who want this race to be over," she said to a loud chorus of boos.
"There are some who think we don't need to hear the voices of people in Pennsylvania or Indiana or North Carolina or Montana or any of the other states that haven't had their chance to vote. Well, I disagree."
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, focused on the economy and the housing situation Tuesday, participating in a roundtable discussion in Santa Ana, California.
McCain blamed "rampant" speculation and "complacent" lenders for the mortgage crisis.
Vowing not to "play election-year politics," he called for more transparency in lending and higher capital reserves for lenders.
Obama had no public events scheduled Tuesday. The senator from Illinois was wrapping up a brief vacation to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
He resumes campaigning Wednesday, with stops scheduled in North Carolina.
He said he planned to spend a lot of time talking about the economy when he returns.
#2
"I have been in the public eye for many, many years, and this is something that I think happens to anybody," she told radio station KDKA in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Exactly. Why, the last time I got off a military plane, there were snipers all around us! Then I had to fight Rambo and Chuck Norris just to get to the car...
#6
She's as big a liar as Bill, but she just doesn't have the charisma to get away with it. And times have changed. But she doesn't have a mortgage so she hasn't noticed.
#7
Just another in a string of democrat puffery....al gore invented internet, skerry hunted deer on cape cod w/double barrel shotgun and listens to rap music, Huxter DID NOT have sex WITH THAT WOMAN or inhaled.
#8
First I thought maybe Hillary was dodging spitballs shot by the press entourage. Then I remembered the press only throws her softballs.
Posted by: ed ||
03/26/2008 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#9
apparently, she wasn't lying:
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#10
now, THAT'S hilarious, Frank. The wonders of the internet. I gotta remember to send Al Bore something for inventing it.
BTW, did anyone catch Hannity (radio) this afternoon? Dick Morris was on and ripped Hillary a new one on NUMEROUS other puffed up lies she's told (like how Chelsea was basically at ground zero on 9/11, when she was actually at a friend's house....used that one to "relate" to the firefighters/police in NYC and portray herself as the "scared mother").
Posted by: BA ||
03/26/2008 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Dang, I was hoping it was true. then she would get a purple heart, which would be much better than the black heart she has.
The campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is seeking to play down news that the former first lady gave an incorrect account of landing in Bosnia in 1996 under sniper fire, and refused to answer additional questions about a flap that could hurt her chances of catching Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the race for the Democratic nomination. Weve said all were going to say on that, said Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer on a Tuesday morning conference call with reporters.
A video from CBS News had shown that Clintons version of having come under sniper fire was not correct. Her campaign chalked up the discrepancy between her account and the video as a case of Clinton misspeaking. The Obama campaign seized on the story when it was splashed across the CBS website Monday, with spokesman Tommy Vietor saying it is part of a troubling pattern of Sen. Clinton inflating her foreign policy experience.
Top Clinton surrogates also sought to play down the story, which could prove to be harmful to the former first ladys chances. Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), who was asked about the flap on MSNBC, referred to it as a small incident that happened 10 to 15 years ago.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Top Clinton surrogates also sought to play down the story referred to it as a small incident that happened 10 to 15 years ago.
Whenever the Clinton campaign was asked how her duties as First Lady qualify as experience, they always cited this particular trip. According to them it was much more then a typical USO junket. IIRC, the narrative was she was out risking life and limb brokering some deal to save orphans while the troops were being entertained. Now the Clinton surrogates are calling what was previously described as a diplomatic mission a small incident. It makes one wonder if she really was instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland as they have maintained.
#8
nix the pullout talk, guys. We WANT her to stay in til the "There Will Be Blood" Donk convention. The sheer carwreck-viewing opportunities as well as the potential to split the Donk party for generation(s) is too delicious
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#9
You mean like YOU and O'bam-bam?
Well, yeah....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/26/2008 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#10
It's the liberal mantra at work - one set of rules for thee and another set of NO rules for me.
There - fixed that for ya', P2k.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/26/2008 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Barbara, have you got the Industrial-Strength Popcorn Generator yet, or is it still on back-order?
#14
Yeah, Hill, you've nailed it square this time. What that means, of course, is that you're admitting that we're sick of every motherf*cking ASS pol that's besmirched the political landscape since Scoop Jackson died. I truly hope you and Obama rip each other and that criminal combination you both belong to into doll rags.
#16
#1 Querent - It's being installed even as we speak type. Should be finished by the end of the month.
Alaska Paul has a picture. ;-p
Now if I could just get that zoning variance so I could run a rail spur to my back yard....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/26/2008 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Hillary's nose keeps getting longer and longer. She sure does make up a lot of $hit! It seems like she can't help herself -- it just comes naturally and by marriage.
Bosnian snipers are the ones that killed Vince Foster, then they got into his office and moved things around, hid papers and returned them 3 months later.
You know, I don't like Obama, but given how many bodies pile up around the Clintons, if I was him, I'd be worried. While the demonrats are funny ripping each other to shreds, things would get really bad if they actually do resort to serious violence.
#21
Sorry Silentbrick, I didn't read your comment until I posted mine.
Ima in sychronisity with your thoughts on the Clintons BTW.
Frank G #8: "nix the pullout talk, guys. We WANT her to stay in til the "There Will Be Blood" Donk convention. The sheer carwreck-viewing opportunities as well as the potential to split the Donk party for generation(s) is too delicious"
...."split the Donk party for generation(s" Frank G
GAWD DAMN! that's plain unfair, NOW IMA GETTING MY EXPECTATIONS ON..
The DRDO is looking at testing the enhanced version of the Exo Atmospheric Interceptor, PAD Missile, in June-July this year.
The earlier PAD Missile, tested in November 2006, which had a 600 km range has now been enhanced to intercept a target fired from a 1,500 km to 2,000 km. It had a kill altitude of 47 km, which has now been enhanced to between 75 and 90 km, Mr Adalat Ali, Deputy Project Director of the Air Defence Project, said.
The DRDO wants to develop an interceptor for a missile fired from a 5,000 km range which would require a kill altitude of 250 km by 2011-12.
Earlier, the Defence Minister visited the missile lab- Research Centre Imarat (RCI), saw an exhibition on missile development and addressed the scientists of the various DRDO labs in Hyderabad.
Posted by: john frum ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The business end of the PAD interceptor...
Posted by: john frum ||
03/26/2008 7:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
See also WAFF.com > UPIASIAONLINE - CHINA'S DESIGNS ON INDIA'S NORTHEAST. Among others, asks what China advantage stands to gain vv India from Tibet = Tibetan Plateau.
The National Assembly on Monday elected PPP Vice Chairman Yousaf Raza Gillani as the countrys new prime minister, with the highest number of votes in Pakistans parliamentary history. Gillani won with a resounding majority of 264 votes in the 342-seat Lower House, compared to his competitor, the PML-Qs Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, securing only 42 votes. Three MNAs chose to abstain from the voting process: Maulana Asmatullah of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Ideological; and Faqir Jadem Mangrio and Ghulam Dastgir Rajar of the PML-Functional.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Gillani, Ghilani, Gheelani, and a few other spellings = bad news.
Thenergo to build 9MW CHP bio-oil to energy plant in Belgium... The project will be operational for up to 8,000 hours per year (non leap years have 8760 hours), generating 6MWth of heat for two industrial partners, and 9MWe of electricity for the equivalent of 20,000 households.
The project...is expected to become operational in February 2009...will run on bio-oil extracted from the seeds of the jatropha plant. The jatropha seeds are a non-edible, high energy fruit grown on semi-arid or waste land in South East Asia.
- a fair number of people have suggested growing the jatropha in the SW part of the US but I'm not aware of how far this has gone beyond the talking point-
Posted by: john frum ||
03/26/2008 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
if they burn kudzu, we've got the energy thing licked :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is wasteful. Take the high value oil, refine it and use it in automobiles. Burn plant waste in power plants, not the high value products. I just know there is a large governmental subsidy involved.
Posted by: ed ||
03/26/2008 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
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.
NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia - Russia and Egypt signed an agreement on Tuesday opening the way for Russian firms to bid for lucrative contracts to build nuclear power plants in Egypt.
The campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is seeking to play down news that the former first lady gave an incorrect account of landing in Bosnia in 1996 under sniper fire, and refused to answer additional questions about a flap that could hurt her chances of catching Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the race for the Democratic nomination. Weve said all were going to say on that, said Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer on a Tuesday morning conference call with reporters.
