Those mad mullahs cuss us out for who we are, no matter what. If we cut aid, then Pakistanâs government no longer keeps a lid on those mullahs. Giving aid to keep its government on our side is more practical than declaring war to go out and crush the will of the civilian population supporting Islamism. We will never win the hearts and minds of Islamists, and cultures overrun by their ilk will always indoctrinate their generations to hate us.
. March 25, 2007 SouthAmerica: It is interesting The Economist magazine choice of a title for an article on their magazine about the Jewish lobby â âLeviathanâ. The Christian interpretation of âLeviathanâ is often considered to be a âdemonâ or natural monster associated with âSatan or the Devilâ. Some biblical scholars considered âLeviathanâ to represent the pre-existent forces of chaos. *** Regarding the actual article The Economist said that today the Jewish lobby in the United States can count with the help of - ââ¦The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate.â From all the people I have seen on television for a long time âZbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviserâ is the one person that has the best understanding of what is happening in Iraq, and the Middle East. Zbigniew Brzezinski has a better understanding, and he has grasped the severity of the sectarian civil war in Iraq - he has a much better understanding than the entire gang of the Bush administration put together. *************** âTaming Leviathanâ Mar 17th 2007 The Economist - print edition These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby This week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of âthe lobbyâ. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears. They heard from the four most powerful people on Capitol HillâNancy Pelosi and John Boehner from the House, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell from the Senateâas well as the vice-president (who called his talk âThe United States and Israel: United We Standâ) and sundry other power-brokers. Several first-division presidential candidates held receptions. The display of muscle was almost equalled by the display of unnerving efficiency. There were booths for âcongressional check-inâ, booths for âdelegate banquet troubleshootingâ, and booths full of helpful young people. The only discordant note was sounded by a group of a dozen protestersâOrthodox Jews in beards, side-curls and heavy black coatsâholding up signs saying âStop AIPACâ, âTorah forbids Jews dictating foreign policyâ, and âJudaism rejects the state of Israelâ. The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate. (There are now more Jews in Congress than Episcopalians.) Both parties are competing with each other to be the âsoundestâ on Israel. About two-thirds of Americans hold a favourable view of the place. Yet they have reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel. And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interestârun by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democratâeven bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in. Some of the most determined are Arab-Americans, who have been growing in numbers and influence for yearsâthere are probably about 3.5m of themâand who have been in the eye of a political storm since September 11th 2001. They are a growing political force in northern Ohio and Michigan, and their institutions, such as the Arab American Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have plenty of access to Middle Eastern money. But so far their performance has been unimpressive. James Zogby has been promising a breakthrough for his Arab American Institute for 20 years. CAIR remains marginal. Arab-Americans are badly split between Christians (63%) and Muslims (24%). They have also been late in taking to politics. Between 1990 and 2004 Arab-Americans donated $788,968 to candidates and parties, compared with $56.8m from pro-Israeli groups. AIPAC's ace in the hole is the idea that it represents Jewish interests in a country that is generally philo-Semitic. But liberal Jewish groups retort that it represents only a sliver of Jewish opinion. A number of more liberal groups have started to use their political muscleâgroups such as the Religious Action Centre of Reform Judaism, Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum. These groups scored a significant victory over AIPAC by persuading Congress to water down a particularly uncompromising bit of legislation, the Palestinian Anti-terrorism Act, which would have prevented any American contact with the Palestinian leadership. This accomplishment led to a flurry of speculation that George Soros might try to institutionalise this successful alliance by creating a liberal version of AIPAC. It has yet to materialise. And it is doubtful whether Mr Soros, a left-wing Democrat who has little sympathy with Israel, would be the best patron for such an organisation. But the growing activism of liberal Jewish groups underlines a worrying fact for AIPAC: most Jews are fairly left-wing. Fully 77% of them think that the Iraq war was a mistake compared with 52% of all Americans. Eighty-seven per cent of Jews voted for the Democrats in 2006, and all but four of the Jews in Congress are Democrats. Dissenting voices An even bigger threat to AIPAC comes from the general climate of opinion. It is suddenly becoming possible for serious peopleâpoliticians and policymakers as well as academicsâto ask hard questions about America's relationship with Israel. Is America pursuing its own interests in the Middle East, or Israel's? Should America tie itself so closely to the Israeli government's policies or should it forge other alliances? Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, worries that America is seen in the Middle East as âacting increasingly on behalf of Israelâ. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has compared the situation in Palestine to segregation, and argued that there could âbe no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian stateâ. Philip Zelikow, her former counsellor, argues, in diplomatic language, that the only way to create a viable coalition against terrorists that includes Europeans, moderate Arabs and Israelis, is a âsense that Arab-Israeli issues are being addressedâ. The biggest challenge facing AIPAC is how to deal with this changing climate. Its members have been admirably honest about their mission in life. They boast about passing more than a hundred bits of pro-Israel legislation a year. But they are too willing to close down the debate with explosive charges of anti-Israel bias when people ask whether this is a good thing. America needs an open debate about its role in the Middle Eastâand AIPAC needs to take a positive role in that debate if it is to remain such a mighty force in American politics. .
. April 12, 2007 SouthAmerica: The Iraq mess has started spinning completely out of control to the other countries in the area.. The Kurds missed their opportunity to declare their independence and create their new country - Kurdistan. Now it is too late and the Kurds better start polishing their knowledge of the Turkish language because that will be part of their future. ******* International Herald Tribune ââ¬ÅTurkey ready to enter northern Iraqââ¬Â By: Sabrina Tavernise Published: April 12, 2007 ISTANBUL: The head of Turkey's military stated publicly in the sharpest language to date that he was ready to conduct military operations in northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels hiding there. The final decision, however, rests with Parliament, he said. A Turkish invasion of Iraq would be a nightmare for the United States, which is struggling to keep the war in Iraq from spreading outside that country's borders. While the threat is not immediate and would require full approval from the country's diverse Parliament, it has grown more urgent, with Turkish politicians of all stripes calling for action. Nearly a dozen Turkish soldiers have been killed in clashes with Kurdish rebels in the past week, the Turkish authorities said. "Should there be an operation into northern Iraq?" said Yasar Buyukanit, Turkey's chief of staff, at a surprise news conference in Ankara, his first since taking the position eight months ago. "From a solely militaristic point of view, yes, there should be." The remarks were the sharpest in a series of recent expressions of frustration by Turkey, which is anxious about the ability of Kurds who are rebelling against the Turkish government to go back and forth into the Kurdish north of Iraq. The issue is highly sensitive: America's strongest allies in the fighting in Iraq are Kurds, and it would be tricky for Washington to press them to take action against their brethren. Buyukanit registered that frustration when he criticized Massoud Barzani, the Kurdish leader of northern Iraq and a major American ally, who raised questions about Turkish concerns in an interview with an Arabic television station. But the general said it was the United States that was responsible for what he saw as reckless speech. The parliamentary chairman, Bulent Arinc, who spoke just before Buyukanit appeared, warned that the Americans had abandoned the Kurds in the past, a history that could repeat itself. "Even under Saddam, every time the Kurds revolted, trusting the United States, they always perished," he said. "I advise them to be cautious also today." "The U.S. leaves this region but we have been here for thousands of years." Sebnem Arsu contributed reporting. .
. June 6, 2007 SouthAmerica: I did watch the Republican Party debate last night â with the exception of one or another comment â I can summarize that group in a nutshell: What a bunch of guys out of touch with reality. And a bunch of guys who are slave to ideologies of the past â todayâs world is a subject that is away above their understanding and their heads. Rudi is Pathetic with his misplaced fear of Iran (Rudi should be afraid instead of Pakistan a country armed with about 100 nuclear warheads and Osama Bin Ladden and Al Qaeda preparing right their in Pakistan for their next terrorist attack) Senator Brombeck is in La La Land â he mentioned that he is introducing a proposal for Iraq to be split into 3 parts. (Someone should tell Senator Brombeck that the Turkish Army is lined up right now in the border of Turkey and Iraq and they are ready to attack the Kurds living in the North of Iraq.) The Iraq civil war is about to spread to the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq making the situation even worse than already is. Tancredo wants immigrants to cut their ties with the countries from were they come from â sureâ¦â¦â¦â¦ All we can do is laugh of these guys â what a crew. I hope Al Gore is watching these Republican debates â it will be a piece of cake for Al Gore to beat any of these guys in November of 2008. .
. June 8, 2007 SouthAmerica: Today The New York Times had a front page article â âTurkey Rattles Its Sabers at Militant Kurds in Iraqâ The article said: ââ¦Somebody has to do something Mr. Bush, you have to give permission: Let Turkish soldiers into northern Iraq.â I guess the Turks have a claim against that piece of Iraq that used to belong to the Ottoman Empire. I donât understand why the Turks are so subservient in relation to the United States? Why Turkey needs the authorization of the United States to go after the Kurds in Northern Iraq? For some reason the Turks have not grasped as yet that the rules of the game has been changed by the Bush administration for many years regarding the United States â the new rules of the game are based on the concept of preemptive attack. If the Turkish army attack the Kurds in Northern Iraq and grab a piece of the action (OIL) â they would be complying with the philosophy of the Bush administration of preemptive attack. For all practical purposes the Turks donât need to ask permission from the United States to wage a preemptive attack in the Northern Iraq area against the Kurds. Today every inch of Iraq is up for grab by whoever is the strongest, and "preemptive attack" is the new rule of the game. .
. June 15, 2007 SouthAmerica: Under the leadership of two idiots - George W. Bush and Dick Cheney â These guys are so incompetent that I bet they would manage to make even the Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley â the âDuke of Wellingtonâ - to look bad in any war. ************** Reid: Pace failed on Iraq war assessment By ANNE FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer The Associated Press â June 15, 2007 WASHINGTON â Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid caused a stir Thursday when he said Gen. Peter Pace failed in his job of providing Congress a candid assessment on the Iraq war and that he was concerned Gen. David Petraeus might be guilty of the same. Democrats typically have shied from stinging comments on military officers, instead focusing on President Bush and administration policies in Iraq. Republicans responded vigorously to the change against Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Said White House spokesman Tony Snow: "In a time of war, for a leader of a party that says it supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the man that is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq." Added Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee: "Harry Reid doesn't understand that there are some lines you just don't cross." The switch in the Democrats' focus began last week when they told Defense Secretary Robert Gates they would challenge Pace if he were nominated for a second two-year term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They cited his role as the president's closest military adviser on a failing war. "A vote for or against Pace then becomes a metaphor for where do you stand on the way the war is handled," said the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Reid, D-Nev., went further Thursday when he said he was happy to hear of Pace's departure. The majority leader stopped short of calling Pace incompetent and declined to confirm a report in "The Politico" that he had done so earlier in the week in a private phone call to a group of liberal bloggers. But he essentially said as much when he told reporters that Pace "had not done a very good job in speaking out for some obvious things that weren't going right in Iraq." Reid said he also was concerned about Petraeus, who told USA Today this week that there are "astonishing signs of normalcy" throughout the majority of Baghdad. Petraeus was quoted as saying, "I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks, big ones, markets that are very vibrant." Reid said the remark "gives you a feeling that he's not in touch with what is really going on in Iraq or just trying to make the president feel good." The senator said in a statement later that he hopes that Adm. Michael Mullen, if confirmed as Pace's successor, "will speak up and pull no punches." Reid's criticism of the two generals led to an immediate and angry backlash from Republicans. "The debate about this war has gone into the gutter when the Democrat leader of the United States Senate uses disparaging remarks to describe our military leadership," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky. Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Reid "needs to clarify his criticisms, which can only be described as highly inappropriate and regrettable." Sen. John Warner, the No. 2 Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said congressional leaders should be allowed to speak freely on their assessment of military officers. But he indicated he was concerned that any suggestion Pace was incompetent could undercut the morale of the troops. "How this will affect the troops remains to be seen," Warner said. "But that is a factor I hope (Reid) weighed before making that statement." Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., said Wednesday she thought Pace was guilty of a dereliction of duty because of his support for Bush's Iraq policy. Tauscher, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Pace lost standing among members in March when he said homosexual acts were immoral and that the military should not condone the behavior by letting gays serve openly. Pace later apologized, including in a letter to Tauscher, for expressing what he said were his personal views. Tauscher said his comments on gays "showed his ignorance" and "had to be deeply discounted because they came from a man who had presided over a war that we got into on a lie and what I consider to be a serious dereliction of duty in having our troops and our readiness so destroyed by the policies of this administration." A spokeswoman for Pace, Marine Col. Katie Haddock, said Pace "is focused on his duties as chairman and is not going to respond to press reports on who's saying what. He will let 40 years of service speak for itself." A spokesman for Petraeus in Baghdad did not immediately respond to an e-mail request, sent late Thursday evening, for comment. ___ Associated Press writer Ben Feller contributed to this report. .
Excellent Commentary as Usual.............. Cheney is not an idiot in that he has never actually utilized the office of the VP for anything else other than the pursuit of US Energy interests.... The region has the most efficient energy left in the world....which is a must for a world power to remain a world power... It costs from 80 cents to $1.50 per barrel to produce in the Iraq/Iran region...including that of Saudi Arabia....much less expensive than any other region of the world..... This efficiency earmarks the goals of the oil businesses...and US capitalism.... During the Cheney administration oil and oil products are up 4 fold....largely because of military actions in the region... Without military action in the region...oil would be in the $40 range... The VP salary is negligible...and is certainly not the reason Cheney is in office... Thus the 8 year window of opportunity has met a large portion of the Cheney objectives...in that the military approach has rewarded the oil business in the short run in an exaggerated fashion...... Now you see token language only after oil has risen 4 fold...that there is interest in alternative energy.... Part of the energy mission has been accomplished.....and a monumental effort has been applied to try to secure the cheapest and most efficient energy sources.... Oil business capitalism at its finest hour... The only question is .....would a non- military approach to securing oil been a better choice..... In the Cheney Bush fiasco....the focus has always been 100% for the energy industry ...and virtually nothing else... Part of the mission has been accomplished.....The oil companies have registered the largest profitability of any other enterprise in the history of the world.... .......................................................................................... Too late now....but a non military approach would have kept the price of oil in check...in the area of $40... Also the resources that went into the war effort....if spent on alternative energy and/or efficiency solutions that are in opposition to oil energy interests....it can be easily argued that the US interests would have been much better served.....
. June 15, 2007 SouthAmerica: Reply to Libertad Dick Cheney is not a real idiot by definition, but he belongs in the same category of the Roberto Mugabeâs of the world. (Roberto Mugabe is Zimbabwe's President) ********** Changing a little the subject of our current discussion: On Wednesday I did spend the entire day attending a seminar in New York regarding Saudi Arabia economic development. It was very interesting and you can check further the info on my posting about Saudi Arabia on the economics forum. .