 |
|
| Politics Forum Index » Socialism Politics Forum » Obama Nobel Peace Laureate by ~Latuff2... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Hop Tamales... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| prince andy... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Hop Tamales" <Lucifer at (no spam) PariahIsrael.con> wrote in message
news:hb3p9t$ma8$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Apparently u do not have to do anything to upset jews and there beliefs to
win a nobel prize.
ties weth the only modern state thet approves torture is ok?
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/IsraelWatch.html
Being weakneed and impotent to provide justice is no stop to gaining a nobel
prize.
Allowing non conforming states full licence to keep breaking the rules is no
stop? Might even help if u r just a pawn who needs support to convince
spectatoes u actually do mean something.
EXCLUSIVE: Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret
Eli Lake
President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding
that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it
to international inspections, three officials familiar with the
understanding said.
The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named
because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama
pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.
Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose
its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several
hundred nuclear bombs.
Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969
understanding because of his strong support for nonproliferation and
priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The U.S.
and five other world powers made progress during talks with Iran in
Geneva on Thursday as Iran agreed in principle to transfer some
potential bomb fuel out of the country and to open a recently
disclosed facility to international inspection.
Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued U.S.-Israeli accord slip
last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by
Israel's Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama's speech at
the U.N. General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear
weapons, would apply to Israel.
"It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was
speaking about North Korea and Iran," the Israeli leader said. "But I
want to remind you that in my first meeting with President Obama in
Washington I received from him, and I asked to receive from him, an
itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for
many years between Israel and the United States on that issue. It was
not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I
received [that document]."
The chief nuclear understanding was reached at a summit between
President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that began on
Sept. 25, 1969. Avner Cohen, author of "Israel and the Bomb" and the
leading authority outside the Israeli government on the history of
Israel's nuclear program, said the accord amounts to "the United
States passively accepting Israel's nuclear weapons status as long as
Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon."
There is no formal record of the agreement nor have Israeli nor
American governments ever publicly acknowledged it. In 2007, however,
the Nixon library declassified a July 19, 1969, memo from national
security adviser Henry Kissinger that comes closest to articulating
U.S. policy on the issue. That memo says, "While we might ideally like
to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum
may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established
international fact."
Mr. Cohen has said the resulting policy was the equivalent of "don't
ask, don't tell."
The Netanyahu government sought to reaffirm the understanding in part
out of concern that Iran would seek Israeli disclosures of its nuclear
program in negotiations with the United States and other world powers.
Iran has frequently accused the U.S. of having a double standard by
not objecting to Israel's arsenal.
Mr. Cohen said the reaffirmation and the fact that Mr. Netanyahu
sought and received a written record of the deal suggest that "it
appears not only that there was no joint understanding of what had
been agreed in September 1969 but it is also apparent that even the
notes of the two leaders may no longer exist. It means that Netanyahu
wanted to have something in writing that implies that understanding.
It also affirms the view that the United States is in fact a partner
in Israel's policy of nuclear opacity."
Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington,
declined to comment, as did the White House National Security Council.
The secret understanding could undermine the Obama administration's
goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In particular, it could
impinge on U.S. efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, two agreements that
U.S. administrations have argued should apply to Israel in the past.
They would ban nuclear tests and the production of material for
weapons.
A Senate staffer familiar with the May reaffirmation, who asked not to
be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, "What this
means is that the president gave commitments that politically he had
no choice but to give regarding Israel's nuclear program. However, it
calls into question virtually every part of the president's
nonproliferation agenda.The president gave Israel an NPT treaty get
out of jail free card."
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association,
said the step was less injurious to U.S. policy.
"I think it is par for the course that the two incoming leaders of the
United States and Israel would want to clarify previous understandings
between their governments on this issue," he said.
However Mr. Kimball added, "I would respectfully disagree with Mr.
Netanyahu. President Obama's speech and U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1887 apply to all countries irrespective of secret
understandings between the U.S. and Israel. A world without nuclear
weapons is consistent with Israel's stated goal of achieving a Middle
East free of weapons of mass destruction. Obama's message is that the
same nonproliferation and disarmament responsibilities should apply to
all states and not just a few."
Israeli nuclear doctrine is known as "the long corridor." Under it,
Israel would begin to consider nuclear disarmament only after all
countries officially at war with it signed peace treaties and all
neighboring countries relinquished not only nuclear programs but also
chemical and biological arsenals. Israel sees nuclear weapons as an
existential guarantee in a hostile environment.
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and
International Security, said he hoped the Obama administration did not
concede too much to Israel.
"One hopes that the price for such concessions is Israeli agreement to
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff
Treaty and an acceptance of the long-term goal of a Middle East
weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone," he said. "Otherwise, the Obama
administration paid too much, given its focus on a world free of
nuclear weapons."
Message-ID: <8cerc5t70iihn84hai70ikkqidc03gnn5n at (no spam) 4ax.com>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/02/president-obama-has-reaffirmed-a-4-decade-old-secr//print/
Quote: On other pressing issues, he faces hard decisions on whether to send
more troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and is still
searching for breakthroughs on Iran's disputed nuclear programme and
on Middle East peace. Israel's foreign minister said on Thursday there
was no chance of a peace deal for many years.
China to NATO Alliance: End War in Afghanistan Now
By Richard Walker
As NATO struggles to keep its members committed to the war in
Afghanistan, China has called for the U.S. and its allies to declare
an end to the war and withdraw.
China's first public comments on the conflict were made in an article
in China Daily, the government-run newspaper. The author was Li
Quinggong, deputy general of the country's National Security Policy
Studies. He described the Afghan conflict as the "anti-terror war
begun by President Bush in 2001" and said it had been "the source of
ceaseless turbulence and violence."
He suggested that if NATO were to withdraw it could be replaced by an
international peacekeeping force to help the Afghan government and its
security forces "exercise effective control over domestic unrest and
maintain peace and security."
He also called on the wider international community to add its voice
to what he referred to as "ever mounting anti-war calls in the U.S."
He suggested anti-war sentiment could be exploited to pressure on the
Obama White House to end the war. In addition, the UN Security Council
could discuss the matter and see if a roadmap could be developed to
bring an end to the conflict.
One of the major points raised in the China Daily piece was "the
ticklish issue" of whether NATO could accept the Taliban as a "key
player" in a "reconciliation process" and whether it could agree on
how to "dispose of al Qaeda's armed forces."
From the tone of the article it was clear China's leaders believed
dialogue with the Taliban was a key ingredient in any effort to stop
the violence, a point often made by the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai.
"The Taliban and the country's major warlords are all key actors who
can play an influential role in deciding the country's prospect," the
article stressed.
In essence, the basic thesis of the article was that chaos in
Afghanistan was linked to "long-standing domestic strife between
factions" and the fact that the country had experienced numerous wars
and conflicts, including the Soviet invasion. All of that was
compounded by the ongoing "chaotic battle" involving U.S.-led
coalition forces, Afghan government troops, domestic warlords, and the
Taliban and al Qaeda.
"The disorderly confrontations and strife do no good to anyone but
have only caused untold suffering to Afghan people," the article
concluded.
For China to encourage an international anti-war movement to put
pressure on the Obama White House implied the Chinese were not only
concerned about an expanded NATO presence in Central Asia but were
also worried by growing unrest among Islamic elements within their own
population. The Beijing leadership has reckoned for some time that the
longer the war in Afghanistan continues the greater is the likelihood
of a spill-over of Islamic militancy into parts of China.
Interestingly, the article offered no suggestions on how to "dispose"
of al Qaeda and its surrogates and carefully avoided any reference to
U.S.-Pakistan or U.S.- India relations.
For China to speak out in this way confirms that its leaders have been
aware of the growing war stresses within NATO and NATO countries.
Behind the scenes in Brussels, NATO has had great difficulty
maintaining a unity of purpose among its members, many of whom
disagree on strategy, with some refusing to send troops to the
frontlines. NATO leaders are witnessing growing opposition to the war
across Europe and in some member states politicians are coming under
pressure to call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and to deny NATO
reinforcements.
On the battlefield, the military campaign NATO thought would display
its strengths has only served to expose its weaknesses. The brunt of
the fighting is being done by the U.S. and Britain with other member
nations refusing to put their troops in harm's way, insisting they not
be deployed to combat zones. The cracks in the alliance, which is now
in its 60th year, emerged as the Taliban showed itself to be a lethal
adversary and the prospect of defeat became accepted wisdom in some
circles.
There is now a real risk that NATO will be bogged down the way the
Soviets were when they faced the same Afghan tribesmen. That fear is
gradually invading the corridors of power in many NATO capitals.
In April 2008, the Obama White House privately believed the new
president would get the support he needed from all NATO member states.
That was a na?ve assumption exposed by NATO that same month when
several alliance members made it clear they did not have the political
will or public backing to provide reinforcements.
Furthermore, states like Germany told White House advisors they did
not want their combat troops involved in volatile zones like Helmand
Province. In Britain, Washington's key ally, Prime Minister Gordon
Brown, has been busy fighting a political rearguard action to maintain
troop levels. Recently, reports surfaced that he denied his generals
extra combat troops. Next year, Canada will pull its troops out and
Italy may follow suit, if not before then.
While the political pressure in Brussels increases there is a growing
recognition elsewhere that NATO misjudged the problems it faced on the
battlefield. And Obama, who made the Afghan crisis a major issue in
his pre-election campaign, had no grasp of Afghan history when he
insisted he had the solution. Like so many before him, he made the
mistake of believing the more troops and military hardware thrown at
the Afghan conflict the greater the prospect of success. The British,
the Russians and even Alexander the Great learned that military
adventurism in Afghanistan
always leads to failure.
NATO is facing yet another major problem as Russia makes it clear it
prefers to have a positive relationship with the West. Since NATO grew
out of a Cold War doctrine in 1949, it might find little to bolster
its continued existence with no bogeyman in Moscow. For the West, the
real threats, economically and militarily, may soon come from China.
A report in the Independent newspaper in London on Oct. 6, 2009,
claimed that China was planning for an economic war with the U.S. that
might result in military confrontations over oil. The Independent
claimed it had proof that Arab oil states have held secret meetings
with finance ministers from China, Russia, Japan, France and Brazil to
discuss ending the primary role of the dollar in oil trading,
replacing it with gold, the yen or the euro, or a combination of
currencies.
China has taken a great interest in Middle East oil in recent years
and now imports 60 percent of its crude oil from the region. It has
invested heavily in oil exploration in Iran, Iraq, Sudan and many
African nations like Nigeria.
As it continues to build its oil and energy links to Africa, the
Middle East and Latin America, it may seek to overpower U.S. influence
in those parts of the globe as a means to creating a new world order
with China at its pinnacle.
What many observers have failed to recognize is that China has been
flooding the Middle East with its exports, thereby partially fueling
its massive industrial infrastructure.
Without increasing oil supplies at a level never reached by the U.S.,
China's march to superpower status would grind to a stop.
Privately, China worries that because it has to ship most of its oil
by tankers, its supply chain could be highly vulnerable in the event
of a military confrontation with the U.S. In such a scenario the U.S.
Navy could close down the majority of China's fuel supplies. The
impact would not only damage its economy but also its military
readiness.
Richard Walker is the pen name of a former NY news producer.
Message-ID: <Xns9C9F6F32F84EAMyIdToken at (no spam) walks.like.a.duck>
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/china_to_nato_196.html
Quote: At home, Obama's popularity is flagging under the pressure of rising
unemployment and a divisive, sometimes bitter debate over his
healthcare reform plans.
Abroad, he is still widely seen around the world as an inspirational
figure.
Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, who had been tipped as a
favourite for the prize, told Reuters that Obama was a deserving
candidate and an "extraordinary example".
Obama's uncle Said Obama told Reuters by telephone from the
president's ancestral village of Kogelo in western Kenya: "It is
humbling for us as a family and we share in Barack's honour... we
congratulate him."
--
A government, of Israel, by Israel, and, for: Israel.
But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light:
for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. The light shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not. The light of the body is the eye:
if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness.
If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that
darkness!
Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give thee light. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is
light.
Quote: Surfer <no at (no spam) spam.net> related
news:qa33d559qv128j03obu28usqqm16mv77uc at (no spam) 4ax.com:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:01:05 +1100, "bon-o" <y at (no spam) x.com> wrote:
With brilliant comedic timing, the very next
morning the Norwegians gave him the Nobel Peace
Prize.
Interesting how opinions vary.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-10/09/content_8773139.htm
Start extract
Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative
religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing "joke".
But the chief Palestinian peace negotiator, Saeb Erekat, welcomed the
award to Obama and expressed hope that "he will be able to achieve
peace in the Middle East".
Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland rejected suggestions from
journalists that Obama was getting the prize too early, saying it
recognised what he had already done over the past year.
"We hope this can contribute a little bit to enhance what he is trying
to do," he told a news conference.
The committee said it attached "special importance to Obama's vision
of and work for a world without nuclear weapons", saying he had
"created a new climate in international politics".
Obama laid out his vision on eliminating nuclear arms in a speech in
Prague in April. But he was not the first American president to set
that goal, and acknowledged it might not be reached in his lifetime.
EXCLUSIVE: Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret
Eli Lake
"-" <jazzerciser at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote in message
news:461c85d7.76352789 at (no spam) news.isomedia.com...
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=288
Liberating America From Israel
Issues; Posted on: 2007-04-10
"For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee
or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called
debate on Middle East policy."
By Paul Findley
Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused
to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express
this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe
the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during
the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S.
aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967
Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any
determined president - even President Bush this very day - could
prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid
by laying these facts before the American people:
Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to
annex the West Bank - biblical Judea and Sumaria - so Israel will
become Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful
role in Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come
until Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they
are committed, aggressive, and influential. Because of deep religious
conviction, they are determined to prevent Palestinians from gaining
statehood on any part of the West Bank. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| prince andy... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Hop Tamales" <Lucifer at (no spam) PariahIsrael.con> wrote in message
news:hb3p9t$ma8$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Hmmm doing nothing gets u everything today?
EXCLUSIVE: Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret
Eli Lake
President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding
that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it
to international inspections, three officials familiar with the
understanding said.
The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named
because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama
pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.
Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose
its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several
hundred nuclear bombs.
Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969
understanding because of his strong support for nonproliferation and
priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The U.S.
and five other world powers made progress during talks with Iran in
Geneva on Thursday as Iran agreed in principle to transfer some
potential bomb fuel out of the country and to open a recently
disclosed facility to international inspection.
Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued U.S.-Israeli accord slip
last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by
Israel's Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama's speech at
the U.N. General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear
weapons, would apply to Israel.
"It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was
speaking about North Korea and Iran," the Israeli leader said. "But I
want to remind you that in my first meeting with President Obama in
Washington I received from him, and I asked to receive from him, an
itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for
many years between Israel and the United States on that issue. It was
not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I
received [that document]."
The chief nuclear understanding was reached at a summit between
President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that began on
Sept. 25, 1969. Avner Cohen, author of "Israel and the Bomb" and the
leading authority outside the Israeli government on the history of
Israel's nuclear program, said the accord amounts to "the United
States passively accepting Israel's nuclear weapons status as long as
Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon."
There is no formal record of the agreement nor have Israeli nor
American governments ever publicly acknowledged it. In 2007, however,
the Nixon library declassified a July 19, 1969, memo from national
security adviser Henry Kissinger that comes closest to articulating
U.S. policy on the issue. That memo says, "While we might ideally like
to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum
may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established
international fact."
Mr. Cohen has said the resulting policy was the equivalent of "don't
ask, don't tell."
The Netanyahu government sought to reaffirm the understanding in part
out of concern that Iran would seek Israeli disclosures of its nuclear
program in negotiations with the United States and other world powers.
Iran has frequently accused the U.S. of having a double standard by
not objecting to Israel's arsenal.
Mr. Cohen said the reaffirmation and the fact that Mr. Netanyahu
sought and received a written record of the deal suggest that "it
appears not only that there was no joint understanding of what had
been agreed in September 1969 but it is also apparent that even the
notes of the two leaders may no longer exist. It means that Netanyahu
wanted to have something in writing that implies that understanding.
It also affirms the view that the United States is in fact a partner
in Israel's policy of nuclear opacity."
Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington,
declined to comment, as did the White House National Security Council.
The secret understanding could undermine the Obama administration's
goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In particular, it could
impinge on U.S. efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, two agreements that
U.S. administrations have argued should apply to Israel in the past.
They would ban nuclear tests and the production of material for
weapons.
A Senate staffer familiar with the May reaffirmation, who asked not to
be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, "What this
means is that the president gave commitments that politically he had
no choice but to give regarding Israel's nuclear program. However, it
calls into question virtually every part of the president's
nonproliferation agenda.The president gave Israel an NPT treaty get
out of jail free card."
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association,
said the step was less injurious to U.S. policy.
"I think it is par for the course that the two incoming leaders of the
United States and Israel would want to clarify previous understandings
between their governments on this issue," he said.
However Mr. Kimball added, "I would respectfully disagree with Mr.
Netanyahu. President Obama's speech and U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1887 apply to all countries irrespective of secret
understandings between the U.S. and Israel. A world without nuclear
weapons is consistent with Israel's stated goal of achieving a Middle
East free of weapons of mass destruction. Obama's message is that the
same nonproliferation and disarmament responsibilities should apply to
all states and not just a few."
Israeli nuclear doctrine is known as "the long corridor." Under it,
Israel would begin to consider nuclear disarmament only after all
countries officially at war with it signed peace treaties and all
neighboring countries relinquished not only nuclear programs but also
chemical and biological arsenals. Israel sees nuclear weapons as an
existential guarantee in a hostile environment.
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and
International Security, said he hoped the Obama administration did not
concede too much to Israel.
"One hopes that the price for such concessions is Israeli agreement to
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff
Treaty and an acceptance of the long-term goal of a Middle East
weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone," he said. "Otherwise, the Obama
administration paid too much, given its focus on a world free of
nuclear weapons."
Message-ID: <8cerc5t70iihn84hai70ikkqidc03gnn5n at (no spam) 4ax.com>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/02/president-obama-has-reaffirmed-a-4-decade-old-secr//print/
Quote: On other pressing issues, he faces hard decisions on whether to send
more troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and is still
searching for breakthroughs on Iran's disputed nuclear programme and
on Middle East peace. Israel's foreign minister said on Thursday there
was no chance of a peace deal for many years.
China to NATO Alliance: End War in Afghanistan Now
By Richard Walker
As NATO struggles to keep its members committed to the war in
Afghanistan, China has called for the U.S. and its allies to declare
an end to the war and withdraw.
China's first public comments on the conflict were made in an article
in China Daily, the government-run newspaper. The author was Li
Quinggong, deputy general of the country's National Security Policy
Studies. He described the Afghan conflict as the "anti-terror war
begun by President Bush in 2001" and said it had been "the source of
ceaseless turbulence and violence."
He suggested that if NATO were to withdraw it could be replaced by an
international peacekeeping force to help the Afghan government and its
security forces "exercise effective control over domestic unrest and
maintain peace and security."
He also called on the wider international community to add its voice
to what he referred to as "ever mounting anti-war calls in the U.S."
He suggested anti-war sentiment could be exploited to pressure on the
Obama White House to end the war. In addition, the UN Security Council
could discuss the matter and see if a roadmap could be developed to
bring an end to the conflict.
One of the major points raised in the China Daily piece was "the
ticklish issue" of whether NATO could accept the Taliban as a "key
player" in a "reconciliation process" and whether it could agree on
how to "dispose of al Qaeda's armed forces."
From the tone of the article it was clear China's leaders believed
dialogue with the Taliban was a key ingredient in any effort to stop
the violence, a point often made by the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai.
"The Taliban and the country's major warlords are all key actors who
can play an influential role in deciding the country's prospect," the
article stressed.
In essence, the basic thesis of the article was that chaos in
Afghanistan was linked to "long-standing domestic strife between
factions" and the fact that the country had experienced numerous wars
and conflicts, including the Soviet invasion. All of that was
compounded by the ongoing "chaotic battle" involving U.S.-led
coalition forces, Afghan government troops, domestic warlords, and the
Taliban and al Qaeda.
"The disorderly confrontations and strife do no good to anyone but
have only caused untold suffering to Afghan people," the article
concluded.
For China to encourage an international anti-war movement to put
pressure on the Obama White House implied the Chinese were not only
concerned about an expanded NATO presence in Central Asia but were
also worried by growing unrest among Islamic elements within their own
population. The Beijing leadership has reckoned for some time that the
longer the war in Afghanistan continues the greater is the likelihood
of a spill-over of Islamic militancy into parts of China.
Interestingly, the article offered no suggestions on how to "dispose"
of al Qaeda and its surrogates and carefully avoided any reference to
U.S.-Pakistan or U.S.- India relations.
For China to speak out in this way confirms that its leaders have been
aware of the growing war stresses within NATO and NATO countries.
Behind the scenes in Brussels, NATO has had great difficulty
maintaining a unity of purpose among its members, many of whom
disagree on strategy, with some refusing to send troops to the
frontlines. NATO leaders are witnessing growing opposition to the war
across Europe and in some member states politicians are coming under
pressure to call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and to deny NATO
reinforcements.
On the battlefield, the military campaign NATO thought would display
its strengths has only served to expose its weaknesses. The brunt of
the fighting is being done by the U.S. and Britain with other member
nations refusing to put their troops in harm's way, insisting they not
be deployed to combat zones. The cracks in the alliance, which is now
in its 60th year, emerged as the Taliban showed itself to be a lethal
adversary and the prospect of defeat became accepted wisdom in some
circles.
There is now a real risk that NATO will be bogged down the way the
Soviets were when they faced the same Afghan tribesmen. That fear is
gradually invading the corridors of power in many NATO capitals.
In April 2008, the Obama White House privately believed the new
president would get the support he needed from all NATO member states.
That was a na?ve assumption exposed by NATO that same month when
several alliance members made it clear they did not have the political
will or public backing to provide reinforcements.
Furthermore, states like Germany told White House advisors they did
not want their combat troops involved in volatile zones like Helmand
Province. In Britain, Washington's key ally, Prime Minister Gordon
Brown, has been busy fighting a political rearguard action to maintain
troop levels. Recently, reports surfaced that he denied his generals
extra combat troops. Next year, Canada will pull its troops out and
Italy may follow suit, if not before then.
While the political pressure in Brussels increases there is a growing
recognition elsewhere that NATO misjudged the problems it faced on the
battlefield. And Obama, who made the Afghan crisis a major issue in
his pre-election campaign, had no grasp of Afghan history when he
insisted he had the solution. Like so many before him, he made the
mistake of believing the more troops and military hardware thrown at
the Afghan conflict the greater the prospect of success. The British,
the Russians and even Alexander the Great learned that military
adventurism in Afghanistan
always leads to failure.
NATO is facing yet another major problem as Russia makes it clear it
prefers to have a positive relationship with the West. Since NATO grew
out of a Cold War doctrine in 1949, it might find little to bolster
its continued existence with no bogeyman in Moscow. For the West, the
real threats, economically and militarily, may soon come from China.
A report in the Independent newspaper in London on Oct. 6, 2009,
claimed that China was planning for an economic war with the U.S. that
might result in military confrontations over oil. The Independent
claimed it had proof that Arab oil states have held secret meetings
with finance ministers from China, Russia, Japan, France and Brazil to
discuss ending the primary role of the dollar in oil trading,
replacing it with gold, the yen or the euro, or a combination of
currencies.
China has taken a great interest in Middle East oil in recent years
and now imports 60 percent of its crude oil from the region. It has
invested heavily in oil exploration in Iran, Iraq, Sudan and many
African nations like Nigeria.
As it continues to build its oil and energy links to Africa, the
Middle East and Latin America, it may seek to overpower U.S. influence
in those parts of the globe as a means to creating a new world order
with China at its pinnacle.
What many observers have failed to recognize is that China has been
flooding the Middle East with its exports, thereby partially fueling
its massive industrial infrastructure.
Without increasing oil supplies at a level never reached by the U.S.,
China's march to superpower status would grind to a stop.
Privately, China worries that because it has to ship most of its oil
by tankers, its supply chain could be highly vulnerable in the event
of a military confrontation with the U.S. In such a scenario the U.S.
Navy could close down the majority of China's fuel supplies. The
impact would not only damage its economy but also its military
readiness.
Richard Walker is the pen name of a former NY news producer.
Message-ID: <Xns9C9F6F32F84EAMyIdToken at (no spam) walks.like.a.duck>
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/china_to_nato_196.html
Quote: At home, Obama's popularity is flagging under the pressure of rising
unemployment and a divisive, sometimes bitter debate over his
healthcare reform plans.
Abroad, he is still widely seen around the world as an inspirational
figure.
Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, who had been tipped as a
favourite for the prize, told Reuters that Obama was a deserving
candidate and an "extraordinary example".
Obama's uncle Said Obama told Reuters by telephone from the
president's ancestral village of Kogelo in western Kenya: "It is
humbling for us as a family and we share in Barack's honour... we
congratulate him."
--
A government, of Israel, by Israel, and, for: Israel.
But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light:
for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. The light shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not. The light of the body is the eye:
if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness.
If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that
darkness!
Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give thee light. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is
light.
Quote: Surfer <no at (no spam) spam.net> related
news:qa33d559qv128j03obu28usqqm16mv77uc at (no spam) 4ax.com:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:01:05 +1100, "bon-o" <y at (no spam) x.com> wrote:
With brilliant comedic timing, the very next
morning the Norwegians gave him the Nobel Peace
Prize.
Interesting how opinions vary.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-10/09/content_8773139.htm
Start extract
Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative
religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing "joke".
But the chief Palestinian peace negotiator, Saeb Erekat, welcomed the
award to Obama and expressed hope that "he will be able to achieve
peace in the Middle East".
Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland rejected suggestions from
journalists that Obama was getting the prize too early, saying it
recognised what he had already done over the past year.
"We hope this can contribute a little bit to enhance what he is trying
to do," he told a news conference.
The committee said it attached "special importance to Obama's vision
of and work for a world without nuclear weapons", saying he had
"created a new climate in international politics".
Obama laid out his vision on eliminating nuclear arms in a speech in
Prague in April. But he was not the first American president to set
that goal, and acknowledged it might not be reached in his lifetime.
EXCLUSIVE: Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret
Eli Lake |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:47 am
|
|