Le Figaro, France
<b>American Diplomacy: The Balance Between Openness and a Firm Stance</b>
By Florentin Collomp
Translated By Corinna Russell
23 April 2009
Edited by Louis Standish
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton defended the initiation of dialogue with Iran, Cuba and other hostile countries, but the Secretary of State criticized Pakistan for relenting to the Taliban.
It was risky. When Barack Obama made his opponent in the the Democratic primary for the presidential election his secretary of State, he was exposing himself to a potential source of rivalry within his close government circle. At the same time, he made the sensible choice to go into partnership with a distinguished political figure who basks in her experience acquired in the Senate and in the White House alongside her husband for eight years. In the middle of the economic crisis, it seems the president wanted to devote himself fully to domestic problems by delegating diplomacy to Clinton, who at 61 years of age, is his elder.
In three months, Barack Obama has fully embraced American foreign policy. He has made a remarkable entrance on the international stage and takes charge of current foreign affairs issues on a daily basis â too much so- according to his opponents. Hillary Clinton herself has adopted a low profile, while the president establishes policies that she applies without striking a false note. When she was questioned on Wednesday by the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs on her opinion regarding the need to reveal more documents on the CIAâs interrogation techniques, she replied: "I will support the decision made by the administration."
"We are still in the process of sorting out what we inherited and searching for a way to improve things. The president is engaging in dialogue with people who were refusing to talk to us," the secretary of State pointed out in her first hearing before Congress since she was appointed. Although the Republican opposition criticized diplomacy "as an excuse," according to Clinton, an outstretched hand reaps benefits.
Her strongest tirade was against Pakistan. She said "I think the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and extremists" regarding the application of the Sharia in the Swat Valley (in the Northwest region of the country). On the subject of Iran, Clinton highlights that the administrationâs decision to participate in all meetings of the six countries involved in the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program "gives us more credibility and influence over other countries."
The United States encourages dialogue but simultaneously threatens sanctions in the event of failure. "We are more than ready to engage in discussion with Iran, she reiterated, but we are putting everything in place for strict sanctions which could be necessary should our offers be rejected or the process fails." The head of diplomacy also declared she is ready to resume discussions on nuclear power with North Korea.
With Cuba, the Obama administration has made efforts over several weeks to put an end to decades of isolationism, by reducing restrictions on traveling to the island for Cuban emigrants. "The presidentâs action led to a response from Raul Castro and an internal debate with his brother Fidel Castro. Itâs a regime that is coming to an end," the Secretary of State explained.
Regarding the criticism of the handshake between Obama and the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas last weekend, she responded "Why should we be afraid of shaking somebodyâs hand? It does not mean that weâre going to give up our principles. It could be an opportunity for President Chavez to move forward."
In the Middle East, like his predecessors, Obama is appealing for the creation of a Palestinian State. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton specified that the United States would only deal with a Palestinian government that incorporates Hamas, if it renounces violence and recognizes Israel.
In all areas, the Obama-Clinton duo is attempting to find a balance between being open and taking a firm stance. Although their aims are fundamentally the same as those of the Bush Administration, the new team in Washington is clearly different, abandoning the past doctrines of the Axis of Evil and the global war against terror.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->US troops urged to spread Christianity in Afghanistan
05-07-2009, 10:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2009, 10:23 PM by dhu.)
<b>"Not even Jesus could reverse the decline in the US":
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->W.E.: The point is we are at an epochal change. This is something that happens perhaps every four or five hundred years. This is not a once a decade recession we are living through. And I call it in my new book the âDecline of the American centuryâ. This is a terminal decline as you had with the British Empire after WWI. It would not matter if Jesus Christ was the President of the US today. There would be nothing he could do to reverse that decline process. We would almost have to reorganize and start from scratch, because the cancer of this financial system has embedded so deeply that theyâve destroyed the industrial technology in the US.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Mollycoddle Pak and chastise India</b>.<b>That has been the way of the US since Independence!</b> Nothing has changed despite a new president taking over.The US plays true to form always.The CIA,Pentagon,and State Dept. cannot give up their "fix" that is Pak.
the time has come when we quit whining and do something about this. If we whine we can whine forever.
It is obvious and clear now that the US is using Pak military to constrain India and that is it's major role. Everything else is a sideshow.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is time that it is admitted that this is long term conspiracy to target India by supporting Pakistan.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My take is containing India is a side benefit for US and prime motivation for TSP. The prime benefit for the Anglo Saxon West in supporting TSP is: balance US support for Israel in Muslim world view, TSP provides palusible deniabality for the opinum crops grown in Afghanistan, TSP provided vital bases in the Cold War as part of the US alliance system against USSR. This one is being parleyed as presence to bring about New World Order. And provide Islamization forces for Central Asia. They really want to get the Sufi strain out and replace with the Wahabi brand of Salafist Islam. That way by being the protectors of the KSA and by extension the Holy Places they take the place of Queen Victoria in the Wilfrid Scaewen Blunt plan. That way the Ishmaelite heresy will be subserveint to New Rome.
As Zia-ul-Haq said
<b>iman, tqwa, jihad fi sabilillah.</b> Translation: Faith, Piety and War in the service of Allah
Al Masry Al Youm, Egypt
Has America Become
an Islamic Country?
By Dr. Saad El Deen Ibrahim
Translated By Asmaa Sharaf El Deen
9 May 2009
Edited by Robin Silberman
Egypt - Al Masry Al Youm - Original Article (Arabic)
In the annual congress of the Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID), held in Washington D.C., earlier in May, the dinnerâs two outstanding speakers were Minnesotaâs Democratic Senator, Keith Ellison, and the foreign minister of the Maldive Islands, Dr. Ahmed Shahid.
This Center was established ten years ago by Dr. Radwan Masmoudi, the American-Tunisian who started his career as a roboticsâ engineer after he graduated from the most famous technological university in the world: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was regarded as a pioneer, with many great achievements in this new field.
However, and after the end of the Cold War (1990), the West in general and US in particular harped on the theme of âfinding a new enemyâ. This theme took an academic tone when the American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington released a study entitled: âThe clash of civilizationsâ. He claimed that Islam and Muslims are the potential candidates to clash with Christian Western civilization, mainly because Islamic culture refuses the freedom of intellect, expression and other basic freedoms. This, according to Huntington, explains the rarity of democratic governments in Islamic countries.
Actually, these opinions and views were a source of worry for many Muslims, including Dr. Radwan Masmoudi. And because he was an engineering scientist, he decided to translate this concern into organized research program. So, he put aside robotics and established the CSID, not only to examine Huntingtonâs theory about the clash of civilizations but also to study the basics of Islam as known by modern Muslims, starting from Indonesia and ending with Morocco.
The new Center never aimed at âapologizing,â âjustificationâ or âtribal defenseâ. Rather, its goal was to know how modern Muslims understand their religion and how Islam regards the values of freedom, equality, respect of the other; and the involvement in society and state affairs, which are the pillars of democracy in the West and the entire world. And even if there are not texts in the Holy Quran or Sunnah of prophet Muhammad, explicitly or implicitly tackling the respect of these values and behaviors, is this supposed to mean there is any contradiction between the Quran or Sunnah and these values?
These are what the CSID clarifies, in addition to supporting and spreading these values in the most peaceful possible way.
Now back to the congress where the general discussion was how to improve relationships between US and Muslims. Here, the speech Senator Keith Ellison gave was of the utmost importance. These are its main points:
1. The chance to have good American-Islamic relationships is already on the horizon after Barack Obamaâs election as president of the USA. This is the man who reiterated in his inaugural speech, and then in his interview with Al Arabia TV station, three weeks after inauguration, that he extends his open hands to the Islamic world so that both can enjoy friendly relationships, respect and mutual interests as well.
2. All this talk about Americaâs relationships with the Islamic world undeniably indicates how America will become a part of the Islamic world. This is especially evident now, when the number of American Muslims exceeds six million. This is more than the entire population of the 11 countries which are members of the organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), the same organization which must call America to join (and here, the hall was swept by thunderous applause).
3. Muslims should not wait for America or Obama to achieve their goals, especially if the cause of Palestine is the only thing that can prompt their participation. Moreover, their regimes may demand something other than what the people are asking for. Obama, like any other politician, will only respond to the demands of an organized lobby, countering first with âmake me do it,â before fulfilling their requests.
4. Even with the issue of consensus, that of Palestine, everyone should know that the only way out will be the disengagement of the two states - Israel and Palestine - according to the suggestions of Clinton, then Bush, and what is to be drafted by Obama on the same principal bases.
5. Ellison and some other senators went to Gaza after the Israeli aggressions and saw how savage the havoc had become. As a result, they assigned some hundreds of millions of dollars to rehabilitate Gaza, teach its children and create job opportunities for its youth. They all agreed that everyone, including Israel, Egypt, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and Hamas, must help. Besides, Egypt and Israel ought to open crossing points on both sides.
6. Arabs and Muslims must start with themselves if they want others to believe in their just cause. Here, Ellison exemplifies the matter of Darfur, in which most Arab and Islamic regimes gave thumbs up to the attitude of the Sudanese president, Omar Al Bashir, at the expense of a part the Sudanese people in Darfur (western Sudan). This was in spite of their knowing, like the rest of the world, of the killing, starvation and displacement wreaked on Darfurâs people, and that all this has been documented by international and local human rights organizations.
7. What Ellison, with a group of Senators, did in Gaza after the war, was done again after a field visit to Darfur. Five of them demonstrated before the Sudanese embassy in Washington and intentionally penetrated the security cordon. As a result, they were led to the police station where they were detained for several hours and never thought of using their immunity. And in the police station, they were treated as law violators, although their behavior, learned from the examples of the Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi in the 40âs, and Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 60âs, was nothing but civil disobedience.
8. And at the end, the Muslim black American Senator concluded by wondering if anyone among the 300 million Arabs and one billion and a half Muslims sympathized with Darfur!
Indeed, most of Muslim and Arab attendants left the hall, filled with shame because if this had been said by any Senator or American citizen other than Keith Ellison, we would have had misgivings about him. But this man was the first black Muslim to enter the Congress, even before Barack Obama. And he was the first Senator who insisted upon taking oath on the Holy Quran. At that time the Congressâs secretariat searched for a copy and found one which was, to the surprise of everyone, the personal copy of the third American president, Thomas Jefferson.
Since this time, the Quran joined the Torah and the Bible in the Congressâs secretariat, so that future Muslim Senators shall be able to take the oath. And indeed, three Muslim Senators have joined Keith Ellison in the Congress.
Finally, was Keith Ellison right in describing his country as an Islamic country? Does this satisfy those who always wished Americans to jointly and separately embrace Islam?
Obama the Best Remedy
to American Hegemony
By Tan Zhong
Translated By Christine.Xiao
7 May 2009
Edited by Louis Standish
China - Zaobao - Original Article (Chinese)
April 29th marks President Obamaâs 100 days in office. Within these 100 days, he spent 13 of them visiting 19 countries and meeting 33 foreign leaders. On May 1st, Jeffrey Bader, Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, sent an important message saying that Obama views China as an important member and one of the leaders of the international community. It is not big threat or enemy to America. On Taiwan, Obama says "If they reach an agreement to reduce tensions, I don't see any reason for the U.S. to flash red or yellow lights."
People first thought that Obama might be more aggressive than his predecessor, George Bush, in international strategies in order to avoid the negative effects brought by his skin color and Muslim name. However, his words and actions during these 100 days have relieved people of this worry. From every sign and evidence, the fever of vicious American hegemony is starting to go down.
Two world wars in the 20th century gave birth to a new America and a new world. The focus of the new world order dominated by the U.S. is that the U.S. assumes security responsibilities for certain countries of the Eastern and Western Hemisphere. In the Western hemisphere, the United States established the NATO mechanism, exercising collective defense. On the surface, it seems to be diametrically opposed to the Soviet Union, when in fact it also plays a role in preventing the resurgence of German militarism.
The Fever of Vicious Hegemony is Going Down
In the Eastern hemisphere, the U.S. assumes the defensive tasks for Japan. Likewise, itâs a move designed to prevent the resurgence of Japanese militarism and to help stabilize the Asian situation. Just out of their acknowledgement of this benevolent hegemony of America, four Chinese marshals (Chen Yi, Ye Jianying, Xu Xiangqian, and Nie Rongzhen) proposed Sino-U.S. cooperation in the 1960s.
Starting in the 1970s, China and U.S. turned dissension into harmony. To cope with the Soviet Union, the Taiwan issue was set aside. The U.S. regarded Taiwanese territory as an unsinkable aircraft carrier, holding the Taiwan regime like a pet close in its arms. As a result, the Peopleâs Liberation Army was afraid to act recklessly. It is one of the core beliefs of international U.S. strategy, but a hostile act with which China had to live.
U.S. hegemony has two categories: the secret and the apparent. The secret category, which has been revealed in John Perkinsâ book âConfessions of an Economic Hitmanâ in 2004, is to eliminate foreign regimes, political force or even an individual they dislike by means of money, women and bullets. It runs counter to Obamaâs election promises and for sure will be restrained in the Obama age. The apparent category refers to foreign regime change by public use of military force. The Iraqi war launched by Bush was one such typical worst case.
The apparent hegemony of the U.S. will surely reduce its fever as the strong anti-Iraq war Obama group moves into the White House. It will lead to many problems with the secret vicious hegemony concerning Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Tibetan Independence, Taiwanese Independence etc., for which the Obama-led White House already feel has been tried and wonât regret once having discarded them. Some great civilian brains have called for a complete U.S. retreat from hegemony.
One of them is Christopher Preble, director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. In his speech delivered at the University of Chicago on April 28th, Christopher holds the opinion that the U.S. pays too high a price for its role as âinternational gendarmerie.â The evident cost is the annual security expense (mainly the military expenditure) of 800 billion U.S. dollars, namely 2600 U.S. dollars per capita (for China, itâs only 92 U.S. dollars). Besides, there are unforeseeable costs that are to be paid in the far future. For instance, those civilians killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan by the U.S. army which will inflame peopleâs lifelong hatred of the United States.
Christopher Preble holds that the U.S. assumes responsibility for the security of its friendly nations at the expense of its own national defense. Those nations get a free ride and sleep peacefully in the arms of the U.S. He also suggests that the U.S. cancel its obligations of safeguarding the peace in Taiwan straits and to cut the size of the U.S. navy significantly. This indention can be smelled out in this yearâs budget reduction plan from the Pentagon, which includes the plan for aircraft carrier reduction and to stop purchasing the expensive F-22 stealth combat aircraft specially designed to fight against China.
Shall China embrace the U.S.?
Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Admiral, has proposed to build a combined fleet of the free world in 2005, namely a thousand fleets (also called âone thousand fleet navy â) to safeguard the seas. According to his new strategic plans, the major mandates of the American navy have shifted towards safeguarding the security of the public seas.
Mullen, the former commander of the Pacific Ocean fleet, is very familiar and friendly to China, who he is unable to pose any threat to U.S. security for a very long time. He and other American military leaders all believe that Chinaâs current defense strategy is mysterious and too complex to understand. If China increases the transparency of its navy and develops friendly and sincere cooperation with the United States, China is hoping to be included into this one thousand fleet navy proposal, according to Mullen.
In his press conference on April 29th, Obama stressed that he has spent no effort during his first one hundred days and will continue in these efforts in the hundreds of days to follow, keeping the âAmerican Dreamâ alive for all those men and women who have believed in this journey from the day it began. It indicates a sign that the trend of vicious hegemony in the Age of Obama is turning out to be benevolent. Walter Mead, the Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, sees the vista of Obamaâs world strategy, but points out that the effect cannot be easured instantly, and Obama is focusing his energy on changing domestic policy; in just, 100 days, he has signed 19 executive orders.
While some American experts hold the opinion that the rhythm of Sino-U.S. relations contains superficial conflicts, furtive efforts for reconciliation have never changed since Dwight David Eisenhower (the only change now is that China is the top holder of U.S. debt). Three explicit edges are: 1. the China-U.S. trade balance, 2. the human rights issue, 3. The U.S. uses Taiwan to obstruct Chinaâs reunification. On these three aspects, Clinton mainly focused on the latter two, giving less attention to the first. Bush loosened his control on the second, and mainly focuses on the third. It seems Obama is likely to produce the exact opposite results. He attaches special attention to vigorous economic growth, developing industry and creating more jobs. Even before he moved into White House, he announced his intention to adjust Sino-U.S. economic trade relation. Therefore, he will focus on the first. The human rights advocates among Democrats will press him to shift focus to the second.
Obama, due to lack of diplomatic experience, will have an open mind to the advice of Vice-President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hilary has a mild attitude towards China, and Biden in particular wants to know more about it. Such a combination of the three will benefit China greatly, at least as it will ease the U.S.âs stress on its strategy of targeting China as Americaâs competitor. Such a combination will gradually move away from the Bush era when combative Vice-President Dick Cheney led by the nose.
The tradition of American politics has been that the âwannabe president" first condemns China after being elected, and then the president takes a practical approach in handing Sino-U.S. relations. Moreover, this rule has been broken by Obama. The fever of the U.S.'s vicious hegemony is starting to go down in Obamaâs time, for China is an unprecedented opportunity.
Just like two-way efforts are essential for a man and woman to be in love, Beijing shall formulate a new U.S. strategy to embrace Washington, which is now undergoing a change to the right direction, and pay attention to the following four points: 1. Turn from passive to proactive; 2. Change from rigid to flexible; 3. Take consideration of the other side in terms of economic development and trade policy; 4. Allow different opinions on human right issue. In one word, âseek common ground while maintaining differences on minor issues and achieving prosperity through diversification.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON â President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a <b>âpreventive detentionâ system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat
to national security but cannot be tried,</b> two participants in the private session said.
The discussion, in a 90-minute meeting in the Cabinet Room that included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and other top administration officials, came on the eve of a much-anticipated speech Mr. Obama is to give Thursday on a number of thorny national security matters, including his promise to close the detention center at the naval base in GuantÃ¡namo Bay, Cuba.
<b>Human rights advocates are growing deeply uneasy with Mr. Obamaâs stance on these issues, especially his recent move to block the release of photographs showing abuse of detainees, and his announcement that he is willing to try terrorism suspects in military commissions â a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.</b>
The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because <b>the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.</b>
They said <b>Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about âthe long game
â â how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents.</b> He raised the issue of preventive detention himself, but made clear that he had not made a decision on it. Several senior White House officials did not respond to requests for comment on the outsidersâ accounts.
<b>âHe was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we canât charge and detain,â </b>one participant said. <b>âWeâve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.â</b>
The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at GuantÃ¡namo Bay, <b>but rather for those captured in the future</b>, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. âThe issue is,â the participant said, âWhat are the options left open to a future president?â
Mr. Obama did not specify how he intended to deal with GuantÃ¡namo detainees who posed a threat and could not be tried, nor did he share the contents of Thursdayâs speech, the participants said.
He will deliver the speech at a site laden with symbolism â the National Archives, home to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Across town, his biggest Republican critic, former Vice President Dick Cheney, will deliver a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.
Mr. Cheney and other hawkish critics have sought to portray Mr. Obama as weak on terror, and their argument seems to be catching on with the public. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats, in a clear rebuke to the White House, blocked the $80 million Mr. Obama had requested in financing to close the GuantÃ¡namo prison.
The lawmakers say they want a detailed plan before releasing the money; there is deep opposition on Capitol Hill to housing terrorism suspects inside the United States.
âHe needs to convince people that heâs got a game plan that will protect us as well as be fair to the detainees,â said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who agrees with Mr. Obama that the prison should be closed. âIf he can do that, then weâre back on track. But if he doesnât make that case, then weâve lost control of this debate.â
But Mr. Obama will not use the speech to provide the details lawmakers want.
âWhat itâs not going to be is a prescriptive speech,â said David Axelrod, Mr. Obamaâs senior adviser. âThe president wants to take some time and put this whole issue in perspective to identify what the challenges are and how he will approach dealing with them.â
05-26-2009, 03:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2009, 05:34 PM by Husky.)
7 items from RS' blog.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sunday, May 24, 2009
<b>wsj echoes obama's line: india should "draw down", ie abandon kashmir</b>
may 24th, 2009
this is to be expected, as to the yanks, india is expendable. (especially to obama, for reasons we have discussed before).
<b>what is a little surprising is that indians have started echoing this.</b>
(Nothing surprising. It is the devolution of Hindu Dharma -> Nationalism -> 'nationalism' -> psecularism.)
<b>there was an article in mint by some guys who run a 'national interest' magazine on the web, and they too were suggesting this idiocy.</b>
i suppose this will mean there will be a full-court press soon to convince indians about how desirable it is to let all the taliban come into india, just so that pakistani nuclear weapons will be safe, and the americans can declare victory and go home. actually, we already have the taliban in india (does anybody realize that the taliban go by deoband's ideas? and there are a number mohammedans in kerala who are going to kashmir to kill indian soldiers).
Posted by nizhal yoddha at 5/24/2009 11:10:00 PM 4 comments
<b> 4 Comments</b>
Blogger DarkStorm said...
Â Â <b>"national interest" magazine on the web</b>.. hmmm.. i guess I recall them. I used to read them but I stopped when they became too boring, full of long-winded paragraphs without hitting the nail on the head. Their good authors left them, it seems.
Â Â 5/25/2009 12:45 AM
Blogger AGworld said...
Â Â the said blog is at www.nationalinterest.in
Â Â The article in question had a deeply flawed viewpoint, so lets criticise that without writing them all off shall we?
Â Â Nitin and Yossrin continue to write very well argued, cogent articles. Their blogs continue to be of a very high standard.
Â Â 5/25/2009 5:13 AM
Blogger Unique Perception said...
Â Â Which article by N.I. are you refering to..??
Â Â 5/25/2009 12:14 PM
Blogger DarkStorm said...
Â Â AGWorld,
Â Â Regarding Yossarin, I agree. I am not sure about Nitin. He seems to be confused between pseudo-secularism and national interest.
Â Â Cant really say if they have found their old touch, I havent read them since quite a while.
Â Â I recall they had some good bloggers like catapult and cynical nerd (both of whom have been dormant for a long time). Seems like they have left them, especially after the focus of the site shifted from national interest.
Â Â 5/26/2009 12:39 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>how very convenient: india to become big arms buyer from US, that will be the next headline</b>
may 24th, 2009
more in the "how india is becoming a supplicant to the US" file. this is all part of the obama plan to "declare victory in afghanistan and move on". there will soon be demands for india to send troops to afghanistan to support the 'logistics' deal. and then demands for india to move troops out of kashmir so that pakistan can move troops to afghanistan. in other words, make it easier for terrorists to move in and take over. that is ISI kills some of their own (==taliban) in SWAT, while more ISI (=='kashmiri freedom fighters') walk into kashmir.
btw, very interesting to see hindu-hater krittivas mukherjee who edited this is not anti-US. therefore he is not a communist. so maybe some of my friends who claim <b>the US is the greater enemy of hindus</b> (more than the chinese) are after all correct in the matter.
<b>you still think yanks didn't have a vested interest in doctored EVMs?</b>
Posted by nizhal yoddha at 5/24/2009 09:50:00 PM 0 comments <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India to Sign Logistics Support Agreement with US</b>
India is about to sign a major military pact with the USA - the Logistics Support Agreement.
Well, now the Muslim Vote Bank can taste the bitter fruits of their support to the Congress.
Posted by san at 5/24/2009 12:35:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: geo-politics, india, usa <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The precursor to the subsequent step which was predicted in globalresearch or wherever half a decade ago: America wants Indian army to work for it (do all the dying and dirty work; the same way the Indian army did for the Brits). America also tried to push a deal with Canada where Canadian soldiers would ultimately be under US high command as well. Apparently the Canadians didn't like it all that much.
The deal's wordings are now at the "use of <b>bases</b> and supplies" point. Where it starts.
As a nice side-effect, the Indian army - already arch-psecular, frequently marrying into christianism and a shoe's throw away from converting into it - will become full of christos (the way christoism spread in the ranks of Rome's legions).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>everybody else stays away from US treasuries, manmohan singh buys lots</b>
may 24th, 2009
given the current uncertainty about the US economy, and (now) the plunging dollar, none of the usual buyers of US Tbills have been active in the recent past -- eg. china has drastically cut its purchase of Tbills.
ah, but there is all-weather ally (aka india) rushing in to buy $38.2 billion of US Tbills in the recent past.
of course, manmohan singh has to support his pals.
i was going to say 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread', but no, there's something much more sinister going on.
i don't have the URL where these details were published, if anybody does, please post it.
Posted by nizhal yoddha at 5/24/2009 07:18:00 PM 2 comments
BloggerÂ anand said...
Â Â The great Indian Sell Out effectively began in 2007 when Dr Kalam was not granted a second term which he deserved and the whole nation demanded. The Congress put in their candidate to ensure smooth passage of their plans.
Â Â Would Dr Kalam have appointed Chawla as CEC? I wonder. Rest unfortunately, is going to be history.
Â Â 5/24/2009 8:41 PM
OpenID psenthilraja said...
Â Â Rajeev,
Â Â here is the link..
Â Â http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Business/
Â Â 5/24/2009 9:19 PM<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saturday, May 23, 2009
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>KKKangress bares fangs - get ready for this blog to be banned</b>
so much for that democracy non-sense. Mahatma is out - Mussolini is back in.
This should suprise only the stupid of course - it is the perfect way to carry forward Chacha Stalin's "Animal Farm" agenda. The words for Kulapati Munshi ring ever so lound in my ears
"The P.S.P. is âunpracticalâ; Jan Sangh is âcommunalâ; the Swatantra Party is âfeudalâ, and the Press, no sooner it dared to raise its voice against the vicious trends in the Congress, is the âvoice of vested interestsâ "
guess where they will get the "great firewall" to block news website (hint - who are Xinhua Ram's friends that have the worlds largest net censoring operation?). why blame anyone - it is the public (or is it the EVM) that votes of course!
Posted by Ghost Writer at 5/23/2009 11:36:00 PM 1 comments
Labels: kkkangress <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>ieee computer on systemic fraud possible in electronic voting machines</b>
may 24th, 2009
thanks to a pointer from raja, i discovered this article is available free of cost to anyone on the net. from the may issue of ieee computer.
tanenbaum is well-known for his r&d, i remember his unix-like os, mix, much before linux and even gnu. he is a networking guru, too.
clearly, serious and reputed computer scientists are suggesting that the current system is highly susceptible to fraud.
Posted by nizhal yoddha at 5/24/2009 09:41:00 PM 2 comments
BloggerÂ Rajagopal said...
Â Â Andrew Tannenbaum is author of two very very notable textbooks used in IITs etc about networks and operating system. He also wrote minix OS. He was also the professor of Linus Torvalds - the Linux TM and Copyright owner
Â Â When he says, he says so and it is so.
Â Â Regards,
Â Â Rajagopal
Â Â 5/25/2009 7:01 AM<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Europe rejects electronic voting</b>
may 24th, 2009
do the europeans know something we don't?
EVMs have been rejected as unconstitutional by the germans. <b>also see note in passing about how in 2004 indian evms were stuffed.</b> odd that newsweek doesn't say anything about 2009 india elections. but then guess who is editor of newsweek -- yes, farid zakaria, pal of the nehru dynasty.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
<b>We Do Not Trust Machines
The people reject electronic voting.</b>
('Democracy' is only for long-distance ruling of India by christolands and their christoplants.)
By Evgeny Morozov | NEWSWEEK
Published May 23, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 1, 2009
When Ireland embarked on an ambitious e-voting scheme in 2006 that would
dispense with "stupid old pencils," as thenâprime minister Bertie Ahern put
it, in favor of fancy touchscreen voting machines, it seemed that the nation
was embracing its technological future. Three years and â¬51 million later,
in April, the government scrapped the entire initiative. High costs were one
concernâfinishing the project would take another â¬28 million. But what
doomed the effort was a lack of trust: the electorate just didn't like that
the machines would record their votes as mere electronic blips, with no
One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist or a Luddite to understand the
fallibility of electronic voting machines. As most PC users by now know,
computers have bugs, and can be hacked. We take on this security risk in
banking, shopping and e-mailing, but the ballot box must be perfectly
sealed. At least that's what European voters seem to be saying. Electronic
voting machines do not meet this standard.
Posted by nizhal yoddha at 5/24/2009 07:05:00 PM 0 comments <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The secret is out
De Volkskrant, The Netherlands
Indiaâs Congress Party
Victory Boosts Obama
By Thomas von der Dunk
Translated By Tom Goyens
25 May 2009
Edited by Robin Silberman
The Netherlands - De Volkskrant - Original Article (Dutch)
The victory of India's Congress Party and the new regional superpower Iran offer new opportunities for the American president. With seven hundred million voters, it is slightly more crowded than Luxembourg, but finally they have finished counting: in India the Congress Party won more convincingly than expected. This is a boost for Obama, who elevated Afghanistan, and especially Pakistan, as his top priority.
The victory of the moderate Congress Party in fact means that the nationalist-Hindu BJP loses: a party not only partly responsible for domestic religious tensions; but also, as an extension of that, a party that acts towards Islamabad like red cape taunting a bull. It is known that what constitutes the great peril for the Pakistani government is not the Taliban (therefore only half-heartedly fought), but the rulers in New Delhi.
To this day, Islamabad hides behind the "Indian threat" in order to keep most of its armies at its eastern border and not deploy them to the western frontier. <b>And as a Hindu-identity is emphasized more in India, the stronger Pakistani rulers can use this âbecause of the urgency to protect Muslims." This is used as an argument to: keep most armies where they are, avoid serious confrontation with the Taliban and to ignore Western criticism regarding democratic deficiencies since emergency trumps the law.</b>
This argument has been removed from Islamabad by the election results in India. Though this does not mean that they will now admit to it. The concept of India as an arch enemy is too profitable: the power of the army is based on it, and large economic interests are connected to it. Plus, by never definitively defeating the Taliban, the United States can be permanently financially blackmailed with the Taliban threat.
In contrast to Bush, Obama grasps the importance Tehran, and it explains the change of direction: a rapprochement toward Iran, the most stable nation in the region and the arch enemy of the Taliban. Bush's short-sighted military actions, both in Baghdad and Kabul, freed Tehran from its most important enemies, and made Tehran into a regional superpower, a status which has become indispensable.
This now also applies to the Holy Land, through Iran's allies Hamas and Hezbollah. That's why Obama has made his position very clear to Netanyahu. Israel is gambling on the fact that it can escape a peace settlement because the Sunni U.S. allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear Shiite Iran.
But no matter how much Mubarak and the oil sheiks hate the ayatollahs, as long as the latter take pity on the Palestinians, the former cannot afford - because of the pro-Palestinian sympathies of their own subjects - to choose against Iran and for Israel.
die Zeit, Germany
Youâre On Your Own, Obama
By Jochen Bittner
Is Afghanistan the fading echo of an alliance promise in which Europeans now scarcely believe, 20 years after the fall of the Wall?
Translated By Ron Argentati
26 May 2009
Edited by Patricia Simoni
Germany - die Zeit - Original Article (German)
The United States president wants to finally get control in Afghanistan. He wants to do it quickly, with a troop surge. But Europeans are holding back, just as they did in the Bush era.
It gets suddenly hectic in the conference room of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Kandahar. âWeâre getting reports of explosions in the city,â says one of the Canadian renovation workers. The PRT members, diplomats, police officers and soldiers from the U.S., Canada and Kandahar had just finished bringing reporters up to speed about their painstaking work: how theyâve been training Afghan police recruits in weapons use; teaching Afghan prison guards how to deal with inmates; how they are helping repair a reservoir dam and a college; how theyâve been inoculating Afghan children against polio and how theyâve been building schools. Then came the interruption by the enemy.
They later found that three suicide bombers had attacked the Kandahar governorâs palace. One of them succeeded in shooting several guards to death, while the two others took a dozen Afghans with them when they detonated their explosive charges.
Itâs just another bloody day in southern Afghanistan, as usual. Here, where the Taliban once had their stronghold. Here, where the poppy fields are at their most luxuriant and the drug trade is at its most profitable. Here is where the fight against modernization is also at its fiercest. NATOâs military forces may no longer have to engage the Taliban in combat on the battlefield, but there are still regular firefights against organized troops.
Afghan newspapers may report 40 Taliban killed, or 80 Taliban killed, and always that innocent civilians were also killed in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) air attacks. NATO claims it isnât engaged in body counting. Internally, however, the alliance assumes that somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 Taliban have been killed. Collateral damage figures arenât available.
Still, NATO believes itâs on the right path. âThe enemy is changing his tactics, and that shows how weak he is,â says a Dutch officer at Kandahar Airfield, a gigantic installation housing 17,000 NATO troops. Huge transport planes take off and land here at all hours of the day and night, constantly ferrying in more troops for southern Afghanistan. Helicopters, jet fighters and rocket-armed drones also thunder over the airstrip.
âThe Taliban knows if it attacks us openly, it will lose, so they depend on roadside bombs and ambushes.â There were more than 2,100 of these âevents,â as the military calls them, against NATO soldiers in southern Afghanistan last year, more than double the number in the previous year. And despite their armored vehicles, young soldiers (mainly Americans) continue to die.
Barack Obama wants to turn the page in Afghanistan, once and for all. He transferred more than 20,000 soldiers from the wrong war in Iraq to the right one in the Hindu Kush. The surge has already begun in Kandahar. The newly arrived troops, coming in every day, are still housed in tents, but on the perimeter of the gigantic base, bulldozers are already preparing the terrain for permanent housing.
Western European NATO members are in agreement with Obama, insofar as they support his assessment of the Iraq war, but support for the Afghan mission isnât an issue near and dear to their hearts.
Before an audience of the Brussels Forum, a debate event sponsored by the German Marshall Fund in March that included high-ranking politicians from all over the world, Ruprecht Polenz, chairman of the parliamentary Foreign Committee of Germany, admitted, âWhen weâre told that our security is also being defended in the Hindu Kush, it only makes us laugh.â The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) parliamentarian reminded everyone, "Sixty percent of our population opposes the Afghanistan mission.â
It may be true that Germany, with 3,500 soldiers serving with the ISAF coalition, is the third-largest presence there, but they avoid actions that appear to potentially involve combat. Thatâs why, apart from a few dozen communications technicians in Kandahar, theyâre deployed mainly in the more peaceful northern regions of Afghanistan.
The opposition in France, the other Western European coalition member with a large Afghan presence, is pressuring the government to set a timetable for an end to the tiresome mission.
Is Afghanistan the fading echo of an alliance promise in which Europeans now scarcely believe, 20 years after the fall of the Wall? And, despite the fact that the situation in the south could stabilize, are Europeans nonetheless united in their opposition?
In spite of the bonus of Obamaâs popularity, Americaâs foreign policy makers wonder whether Europeans really want peace in Afghanistan or whether they think it would be better to just leave Afghanistan alone. âDoes Europe feel the same obligation to Afghanistan as America does?â asked Kurt Volker, the departing U.S. ambassador to NATO. He suggested it might be a good idea to try getting public opinion turned in favor of support for the project once again.
The âsoft powerâ European Union approach has managed to result in just 177 police trainers for reconstruction and is, therefore, partially responsible for the long way Afghanistan has yet to go to achieve the independent state of security the world community wants it to have. âThe police aren't very good right now,â warned Richard Holbrooke, the new U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, in a Brussels speech. He added, "We need to increase the number, increase the quality and increase the training." But anyone viewing the situation in Afghanistan this spring sees that the Obama-effect is barely making any changes in European policy. The European Union is leaving the difficult parts of national reconstruction in the Hindu Kush to the Americans, just as it did during the Bush years.
As I have stated on here many times and few understand my statements.
Afghanistan will be obamaâs Vietnam.
He cannot win nor can he be seen as losing that war if he wants to be reelected.
This time we have Europe caught up in our wars for profits. England went down that long lonely road with us in Iraq.
Four million displaced Iraqiâs and Americans donât lose momentâs sleep over their displacement. Not a wink. Kind of like Vietnam with one million Vietnamese killed in that civil war.
Even Europe does not understand the American industrial military complex mentality of always a threat of war or our actual conducting wars for profits.
We will leave afghan like we left nam. Some kind of peace agreement that makes us look like winners and after we leave; the taliban will take over like North Vietnam and the Viet Cong did in South Vietnam.
Oh so many afghans will suffer because of our wars for profits that pretend to be about eliminating terrorism or bring democracy to third world countries that just happen to have 40 years of oil reserves. Have you noticed the terrorists have actually gained ground in the world since our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? How sad we Americans fail to understand the human suffering our imperialism causes in the world.
Our war on terrorism like our war on drugs is designed to make profits for the few.
Few in the world will understand my words and even fewer in America. Ok the ladies in pink will understand my words.
Written by anti-war.
No reaction on North Korea by Bambi administration and environmentalist is just beginning.
Bambi is joining hands with Paki Army and bowing in front of Saudi.
This administration is Jimmy Carter Ver.2.0.
Same domestic policy.
05-31-2009, 11:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2009, 11:54 AM by Husky.)
Moving on from Eye-rak And Roll to Afghanistan.
World-dictator America's nazi troops.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Obamaâs Animal Farm: Bigger, Bloodier Wars Equal Peace and Justice</b>Â Â Â
28 May 2009
âThe Deltas are psychosâ¦You have to be a certified psychopath to join the Delta Forceâ¦â, a US Army colonel from Fort Bragg once told me back in the 1980âs.Â Now President Obama has elevated the most notorious of the psychopaths, General Stanley McChrystal, to head the US and NATO military command in Afghanistan.
McChrystalâs rise to leadership is marked by his central role in directing special operations teams engaged in extra-judicial assassinations, systematic torture, bombing of civilian communities and search and destroy missions. He is the very embodiment of the brutality and gore that accompanies military-driven empire building. Between September 2003 and August 2008, McChrystal directed the Pentagonâs Joint Special Operations (JSO) Command which operates special teams in overseas assassinations.
The point of the âSpecial Operationsâ teams (SOT) is that they do not distinguish between civilian and military oppositions, between activists and their sympathizers and the armed resistance. The SOT specialize in establishing death squads and recruiting and training para-military forces to terrorize communities, neighbourhoods and social movements opposing US client regimes. The SOTâs âcounter-terrorismâ is terrorism in reverse, focusing on socio-political groups between US proxies and the armed resistance.
McChrystalâs SOT targetted local and national insurgent leaders in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan through commando raids and air strikes. During the last 5 years of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld period the SOT were deeply implicated in the torture of political prisoners and suspects. McChrystal was a special favourite of Rumsfeld and Cheney because he was in charge of the âdirect actionâ forces of the Special Missions Units. âDirect Actionâ operative are the death-squads and torturers and their only engagement with the local population is to terrorize, and not to propagandize. They engage in âpropaganda of the deadâ, assassinating local leaders to âteachâ the locals to obey and submit to the occupation. Obamaâs appointment of McChrystal as head reflects a grave new military escalation of his Afghanistan war in the face of the advance of the resistance throughout the country.
The deteriorating position of the US is manifest in the tightening circle around all the roads leading in and out of Afghanistanâs capital, Kabul as well as the expansion of Taliban control and influence throughout the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.Â Obamaâs inability to recruit new NATO reinforcements means that the White Houseâs only chance to advance its military driven empire is to escalate the number of US troops and to increase the kill ratio among any and all suspected civilians in territories controlled by the Afghan armed resistance.
The White House and the Pentagon claim that the appointment of McChrystal was due to the âcomplexitiesâ of the situation on the ground and the need for a âchange in strategyâ.Â âComplexityâ is a euphemism for the increased mass opposition to the US, complicating traditional carpet âbombing and military sweepâ operations. The new strategy practiced by McChrystal involves large scale, long term âspecial operationsâ to devastate and kill the local social networks and community leaders, which provide the support system for the armed resistance.
Obamaâs decision to prevent the release of scores of photographs documenting the torture of prisoners by US troops and âinterrogatorsâ (especially under command of the âSpecial Forcesâ) is directly related to his appointment of McChrystal whose âSOTâ forces were highly implicated in widespread torture in Iraq. Equally important, under McChrystalâs command the DELTA, SEAL and Special Operations Teams will have a bigger role in the new âcounter-insurgency strategyâ. Obamaâs claim that the publication of these photographs will adversely affect the âtroopsâ has a particular meaning: The graphic exposure of McChrystalâs modus operandi for the past 5 years under President Bush will undermine his effectiveness in carrying out the same operations under Obama.
Obamaâs decision to re-start the secret âmilitary tribunalsâ of foreign political prisoners, held at the Guantanamo prison camp, is not merely a replay of the Bush-Cheney policies, which Obama had condemned and vowed to eliminate during his presidential campaign, but part of his larger policy of militarization and coincides with his approval of the major secret police surveillance operations conducted against US citizens.
Putting McChrystal in charge of the expanded Afghanistan-Pakistan military operations means putting a notorious practitioner of military terrorism â the torture and assassination of opponents to US policy â at the centre of US foreign policy. Obamaâs quantitative and qualitative expansion of the US war in South Asia means massive numbers of refugees fleeing the destruction of their farms, homes and villages; tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and eradication of entire communities. All of this will be committed by the Obama Administration in the quest to âempty the lake (displace entire populations) to catch the fish (armed insurgents and activists)â.
Obamaâs restoration of all of the most notorious Bush Era policies and the appointment of Bushâs most brutal commander is based on his total embrace of the ideology of military-driven empire building. Once one believes (as Obama does) that US power and expansion are based on military conquests and counter-insurgency, all other ideological, diplomatic, moral and economic considerations will be subordinated to militarism. By focusing all resources on successful military conquest, scant attention is paid to the costs borne by the people targetted for conquest or to the US treasury and domestic American economy. This has been clear from the start: In the midst of a major recession/depression with millions of Americans losing their employment and homes, President Obama increased the military budget by 4% - taking it beyond $800 billion dollars.
Obamaâs embrace of militarism is obvious from his decision to expand the Afghan war despite NATOâs refusal to commit any more combat troops. It is obvious in his appointment of the most hard-line and notorious Special Forces General from the Bush-Cheney era to head the military command in subduing Afghanistan and the frontier areas of Pakistan.
It is just as George Orwell described in Animal Farm: The Democratic Pigs are now pursuing the same brutal, military policies of their predecessors, the Republican Porkers, only now it is in the name of the people and peace. Orwell might paraphrase the policy of President Barack Obama, as âBigger and bloodier wars equal peace and justiceâ.
Comment on the above by I think Come Carpentier de Gourdon (sp?), who seems to sign his comments as CC:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Deltas and certain other special forces are indeed made up of obsessive borderline people who can be dangerous to others...<b>Their training and ideology is inspired by the Waffen SS "Death Stormers".</b> A high proportion of them end up murdering close relatives or becoming addicted to hard drugs, alcohol and sado-masochism.Â Â
Â 28 May 2009<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Obama seeks to change Muslim perceptions of U.S</b>.
Basically, he had acknowledged Ummah and unified world Muslim, agrees that Muslims don't belong to respective nation but as one nation.
<b>Ballmer Says Tax Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore </b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the worldâs largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obamaâs plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companiesâ foreign profits.
<b>âIt makes U.S. jobs more expensive,â Ballmer said in an interview. âWeâre better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.â </b>
Obama on May 4 proposed outlawing or restricting about $190 billion in tax breaks for offshore companies over the next decade. Such business groups as the National Foreign Trade Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable have denounced the proposed overhaul.
06-06-2009, 08:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-06-2009, 08:58 PM by dhu.)
Obama admits US involvement in 1953 Iran coup
So when are they revealing the details of US involvement with Nepal Marxists, Massacre of Nepal Royal family, Sri Lanka, Myanmar Saffron Revolution, UPA nuke deal trust vote, and so on. If US is involved so intimately with third rate powers like Iran, then what of India and China. It is doubtful if our secularists will open their eyes even after an admission. Hence, they blatantly use the same operative in nepal as they used in the birthing of East Timor.