Western aid workers have long been deeply involved in Afghanistan, putting their lives at risk and fighting for funding back home. Still, they have accomplished little or have seen much of their work destroyed. Many will be leaving the country in disappointment.
#2
This is the Spiegel a German magazine; a German Left Wing magazine who was one odf thse strongest opponents bith to Iraqui Freedom and o inviolvement in Afghanistan.
#7
Don't worry, remoteman. We will soon be in Uganda. First we send in the special forces, then the other advisers, and then troops to protect the advisers, and then people to build the bases, and then troops to search out the bad guys, and ...
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
10/20/2011 22:01 Comments ||
Top||
#1
simple solution: cut spending, grow the economy, start selling assets (worlds biggest yard sale for the next 5-10 years).
Difficult implementation: president can't cut anything except defense and wants to raise taxes, congress has no political will, Too many Americans enjoy the fruits of the debt...
#2
Here's a good start: have the federal government sell the State lands it stole from the states back to the states, with the provision that if the feds ever try to take that land back for *any* purpose, the state can set *any* price it wants on the sale.
If you eat the environmentalists and their sympathetic judiciary [who wish to mold the country into their vision of what they believe it should be without the consent of the governed], we could become a oil export nation again. Particularly providing it from a secure area in which the extraction occurs. Not too many pirates operate from the Aleutians for the North Pacific shipping routes.
#5
Too many Americans enjoy the fruits of the debt... for the moment, grasshopper, just for the moment.
When the US sells assets, nearly always the beneficiary is someone with an inside track to profit, who gets the deal at a bargain price. That's the way things get done in DC.
Drastic federal spending cuts will cause an immediate spike in unemployment and an immediate shrinkage of the economy, when the 'simulation' ends. That will happen very quickly. In comparison, economic growth does not happen quickly. Human suffering will have to fill the gap until the growth, if any, catches up.
THIS IS NOT SIMPLE. Political leadership to bridge this gap is utterly lacking.
#7
Thorium seems a very reasonable, relative cheap & abundant source of nuclear power which has been largely ignored. The USA has about 15% of world sources. When/if electrical/nuke power gets cheap enough, diesel & gasoline can be made from COAL.
Therefore the US government has NOT made major investments in thorium-drive nukes, but instead wastes $ on things like Solyndra and other pet Zero delusions.
Our ancestors worked for a living, he says. So should you.
Get off of welfare. Get off your butt.
Quit your sniffling.
If your life sucks, it's because you suck.
The biggest employer, he says, shouldn't be the band [tribal government] office. He also says the time has come to get over it.
Blaming government? That time is over.
"I spend my time on economic development and I don't care what you say; everything costs money. Even our traditional ceremonies cost money."
He understands that "in order for you to attract and develop business opportunities, you must first develop a climate that's organized and secure" and has worked relentlessly to this end.
#1
That's a keeper. Chief Louie seems to have figured out how to break away from the government plantation in Canada.
Interestingly, Thomas Sowell had a column this a.m. entitled Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene. He said:
"Do people who advocate special government programs for blacks realize that the federal government has had special programs for American Indians, including affirmative action, since the early 19th century--and that American Indians remain one of the few groups worse off than blacks?"
Many blacks and American Indians have figured out how to get out of poverty and get away from the nanny goverment; they figured out that they were just being played for a vote while being kept in poverty.
The most perceptive summary of last night's Las Vegas fiasco was a call to Mark Steyn this afternoon: "The winner of the Republican debate was Barack Obama."
The three leading candidates, Romney, Perry and Cain, spent almost all their time shredding one another, forgetting that they are running against the present Oval Office occupant.
#1
(Joe Biden, threatening to burn, rape and kill unless the "millionaire's tax" is passed.)
"I can't help myself! I have no control over this, this evil thing inside of me, the fire, the voices, the torment! It's there all the time, driving me out to wander the streets, following me, silently, but I can feel it there. It's me, pursuing myself!
"I want to escape, to escape from myself! But it's impossible. I can't escape, I have to obey it. I have to run, run... endless streets. I want to escape, to get away!
"They are always there... always, always, always!, except when I do it, when I... Then I can't remember anything. And afterwards I see those posters and read what I've done, and read, and read... did I do that? But I can't remember anything about it! But who will believe me? Who knows what it's like to be me? How I'm forced to act... how I must, must... don't want to, must! Don't want to, but must! And then a voice screams! I can't bear to hear it! I can't go on! I can't... I can't..."
(Well, then again, that might be Peter Lorre in the movie 'M'. But it kind of resonates with Joe Biden's logic.)
#2
That little $hit Anderson Cooper fostered this food fight and the Pubs fed into it. Newt Ginrich had the best idea: Debates following the Lincoln-Douglas debates with no moderator--only a time keeper. Let the voters decide instead of the lame stream media who gets to be president.
#4
The Republican Party is managed by people who are the pinnacle of cluelessness and naivete. The allow the debates to start far too soon, involve the MSM to define the format, and then see the main candidates mud wrestle for poll numbers. The Republiucans bring Roberts Rules of Order to a presidential election that is a life and death political knife fight with a Radical Socialist who is destroying the nation. BO isn't going to play fair in any way, and cheat and lie and already plays the crony capitalism, Chicago Union way, class warfare, and the looming race card, as tactics to divert attention for the worst recod ever.
#6
IIRC, the Lincoln-Douglas debates were followed by publication of debate transcripts in papers all over the USA, and then by intensive discussions in the papers & among the electorate. The debates clarified the position and character of both candidates & led to Lincoln's winning the Presidency years later. The current TV debates have turned into a freak show, discredit all the GOP candidates, and play into the hands of the MSM and the big Zero. It is as if they set the debates up that way.
Notice the MSM reporting on the GOP candidates avoids direct comparisons of them to Obama, and only makes invidious comparisons on the GOP side.
It would be a nice touch if one of the major candidates withdrew from future debates of this nature and pointed out the above. Also if no such debates were engaged in by the GOP candidate when one is nominated. There are better ways to do this.
In which the editorialist throws an awful lot of vague and overly precise words against the wall, hoping that some stick...and incidentally cover up the very ugly stains on the wallpaper.
[Dawn] ONE finds little legal guidance on this knotty question since the international community has yet to develop a legal definition given terrorism's politically charged nature. Terrorism literally means using terror as a strategy. We're still determined to mince words even as the global corpse count climbs, in hope of keepIng our pet krazed killers off the list...
This definition would cover psychopaths mutilating hapless victims for immediate pleasure; husbands abusing their wives to exact future compliance; and landlords, criminals and political organizations threatening larger populations in pursuing their divergent goals.
Clearly, this definition is too broad to be useful. These divergent phenomena deserve either different names or at least recognition as sub-types, e.g., psychopathic, family and political terrorisms. Emulating Uncle Sam, I focus here single-mindedly on political terrorism, the most controversial sub-type.
How does one define that sub-type? Unfortunately, even this is not an easy task. My academic peers, as divided as international officials, have generated over a hundred different definitions. Fortunately, most disagreements are over details and semantics. There is some agreement that political terrorism's core elements include 'deliberately physically attacking non-combatants in pursuing political goals, even if the goals are just'. This working definition can help in analysing the complexities of political terrorism.
Firstly, are freedom fighters not terrorists? Those deliberately targeting non-combatants would be considered Islamic fascistiunder this definition. Freedom fighters facing stronger armies often start targeting non-combatants and justify their repugnant means by arguing the justness of their goal. Under this definition though, ends do not justify means. Thus, many resistance movements globally, e.g., in Afghanistan, India, Pakistain and Colombia, engage in terrorism.
While Uncle Sam may think otherwise, the Mujahideen of the first Afghan war were as much Islamic fascistias those of the second Afghan war since they often targeted non-combatants. However, we can't all be heroes. Somebody has to sit on the curb and applaud when they go by... this is merely a judgment on the means and not the ultimate aims of these groups around the globe. As the ANC's transformation in South Africa reveals, terrorist groups with worthy goals can win international support by abandoning terrorism. The Arab Spring shows that freedom fighters can dislodge tyrants without not only terrorism but also major violence. Conversely, terrorism has a sorry success rate to date.
Secondly, do states commit terrorism? If they inadvertently kill non-combatants during combat, they do not commit terrorism but they could be guilty of war crimes, an equally serious offence, if they do not follow the international laws for protecting non-combatants during war. Cases where low-level soldiers deliberately target non-combatants would constitute individual terrorism and possibly state war crimes.
State terrorism only occurs when brass hats materially support Islamic fascistior order soldiers to deliberately target non-combatants. Thus, the civilian casualties caused inadvertently by the Americans in Iraq during combat cannot be considered terrorism, though some of them may constitute war crimes. However, there's more than one way to skin a cat... the torture of prisoners, duly approved by top Bush-era officials, certainly constituted state terrorism ... any action taken by a non-Moslem state that constrains the violent impulses of Moslems or their allies ... as did the Hiroshima bombing, probably the most destructive single terrorist attack ever.
Thirdly, who is responsible for the thousands killed by terrorism in Pakistain? Some people hold the Pak and American governments culpable arguing that their policies provoke forces of Evil into terrorism. 'Provocation' is actually a legal term which can be used to mitigate certain crimes. British women who kill highly abusive husbands while facing further direct trauma can claim provocation in defence, but merely to request a lighter sentence.
Furthermore, they are not given a licence to just kill anyone in retaliation nor can relatives of even murdered women invoke provocation in killing murderer husbands.
Given these stringent requirements, can someone from Fata, even if he or she unfortunately loses a non-combatant relative to American or Mighty Pak Army action, justifiably claim provocation if he or she travels all the way to Islamabad or Bloody Karachi to exact Dire Revenge on non-combatants instead of taking the shorter journey to the perpetrators and courts? Clearly, from a criminal justice viewpoint, legal culpability lies with those planning, executing and materially supporting terrorism.
True, beyond the realms of criminal justice, there is the question of political responsibility. Viewed so, both governments have indirectly contributed to terrorism. However, it was a brave man who first ate an oyster... that political culpability cannot lessen the legal culpability of terrorists. There are more sensible avenues available for protesting bad government policies, such as peaceful protests and courts.
Thus, it is ironic to see a populist Pak politician linking terrorism primarily to drone attacks when he chooses for himself instead the legal (and personally safer!) option of peaceful protests against drone attacks.
There are appropriate responses to inappropriate acts and there are inappropriate ones. Those committing inappropriate responses deserve appropriate punishment, like those committing the original inappropriate act. Thus, the only basis for peace with the TTP should be their unconditional surrender and submission to justice.
Finally, is terrorism linked to particular religions? Biased analysts claim that though not all Mohammedans are terrorists, almost all Islamic fascistiare Mohammedan. Facts easily disprove this misrepresentation. While Al Qaeda has attracted the most attention since it targets the West, highly egregious terrorism has been committed more frequently by others in recent history. Some even committed it in the name of religion, e.g., the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa routinely attacks villages, chopping men's limbs, killing thousands, raping women in front of their families and keeping them as mistresses.
Others were committed in the name of nationalism and ideology, e.g., the Rwandan, ex-Yugoslavian and Cambodian civilian massacres. However, Switzerland makes more than cheese... these barbarisms do not reflect the original teachings of those religions or ideologies, just as Al Qaeda's barbarism does not reflect Islamic teachings. In Islam, whoever kills an innocent person is though as he killed all mankind. Non-combatants were granted amnesty during the 630 AD Mecca conquest. Sick minds, not religions, produce terrorism.
Hence, religious terrorism is an oxymoron which should be discarded.
Thus, an objective analysis of terrorism requires a clear definition, which may not suit major powers. So, under Bush, the American definition degenerated into 'whoever we consider one'. Second, it must be grounded in facts, not biases. Third, it requires differentiating between immediate and indirect causes. To date, these simple requirements have eluded global policymakers.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Dawn] THE military has made perhaps its most concrete statement yet about the cross-border attacks it has been battling since this summer. It has pinpointed Maulana Fazlullah of Swat, the infamous Mullah Radio, as being at least one of the commanders behind the series of raids from eastern Afghanistan that have taken the lives of dozens of Pak soldiers in areas in the northwest such as Dir and Chitral. For one, this lays bare claims by the army and the civilian leadership that the Swat ...a valley and an administrative district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistain, located 99 mi from Islamabad. It is inhabited mostly by Pashto speakers. The place has gone steadily downhill since the days when Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat... Taliban had been defeated as a result of the operation there in 2009. And if Fazlullah really had been critically maimed, as the military had claimed, he was clearly able to find the medical attention needed to regain enough strength to pull together a large force of men and launch attacks. Fears after that operation that the Swat Taliban's big shotship was intact and had simply been squeezed out of Malakand, retaining the capacity to retaliate later, now seem to have been well-founded. But the scale of the attacks implies that more than just the leadership has beat feet; some of these raids have reportedly been carried out by groups that number in the hundreds.
The implications for regional cooperation on security issues are also troubling. Pakistain's requests that the Isaf and Afghan leaderships take action against Pak Taliban who have found safe havens in Afghanistan now simply mirror demands from the latter that Pakistain go after Afghan Taliban operatives in Fata and Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... Where, then, will these mutual accusations lead? Is the failure to go after Fazlullah and others a deliberate one, a pressure tactic to encourage Pakistain to dismantle Afghan Taliban safe havens on this side of the border? If so, it has not succeeded yet. And against the backdrop of disturbing news from the Afghan battlefield, a pending US troop withdrawal, and an already worrying domestic security situation, what will make Pakistain respond to Isaf and Afghan demands?
Whatever the answers, the current do-nothing approach of all players doesn't seem to be solving the problem. Instead, it might simply be causing them to dig their heels in further. Given their recognition of the costs of the existing operations in Afghanistan and Fata, the situation is unlikely to result in a full-blown war. But the recent tensions over the Haqqani network and Burhanuddin Rabbani's ... the murdered legitimate president of Afghanistan... liquidation shows how destructive such issues can be, and unless these three stakeholders can find a way to at least partially meet each other's demands, the future course of their relationship is unlikely to improve significantly.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
#1
Send up a drone and cue up the Buggles: "Video killed the Radio Star"
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/20/2011 15:26 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.
...a valley and an administrative district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistain, located 99 mi from Islamabad. It is inhabited mostly by Pashto speakers. The place has gone steadily downhill since the days when Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat...
