Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Henny

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11
121
3DHS / 'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says
« on: July 06, 2007, 12:16:59 AM »
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Maintaining security in Diyala province north of Baghdad will be impossible if U.S. troops are withdrawn from Iraq, according to a U.S. senior ground commander there.

"We obviously cannot maintain that if the forces are withdrawn -- and that would be a very, very bad idea, to do a significant withdrawal immediately," Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, told CNN's Jamie McIntyre on CNN.com Live.

In September, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is to brief Congress on the progress of operations involving the recent increase of U.S. troops in Iraq -- a buildup the Bush administration calls a "surge." The briefing could determine how long the additional troops will stay.

Mixon's troops are working with Iraqi forces fighting entrenched al Qaeda forces in Baquba and around Diyala province in an operation dubbed "Arrowhead Ripper."

U.S. troop casualties have been high in the province, according to U.S. commanders, because insurgent forces are using the area as a base and have booby-trapped it with "deeply buried" roadside bombs that have killed entire Humvee crews.

Diyala became the home base for many al Qaeda forces when U.S. troops clamped down on Baghdad in February with increased troop levels, the military says.

Once a model of how the United States was clearing violence from parts of Iraq, Baquba, the capital of Diyala province, has become a ghost town except for the pockets of fighting between coalition and al Qaeda forces.

Mixon said the U.S. military strategy of "clear, hold and retain" was not possible when his troops arrived in Baquba last September because he did not have enough forces.

"I only had enough forces initially when I arrived here last September to clear Baquba. I did that many times, but I was unable to hold it and secure it," Mixon said.

"Now I have enough force to go in, establish permanent compound outposts throughout the city that will be manned by coalition forces, Iraqi army, and Iraqi police, and maintain a permanent presence.

"But all of this has been made possible with the additional forces that have been given to me as a result of the surge," Mixon said.

While U.S. and Iraqi forces appear to have the upper hand in Diyala, Mixon said there is still some question about the Iraqi government's commitment.

"The problem is one of support that [Iraqi forces] receive from their Ministry of Defense and their other higher headquarters -- particularly in logistics. We have got to increase their numbers, we've got to get better logistic support from their headquarters so they can sustain the fight," Mixon said.

Mixon said he understands that some Americans are losing patience with the war.

"We would like to see things move along more quickly. However, a counterinsurgency operation is a long fight," he said. "We're going to have to develop a strategy in the near term to deal with the immediate threat, which I believe the surge has done."

But he added, "Let me be clear about what I said: The U.S. still will need to have a long-term commitment to Iraqi security forces to ensure long-term success and stability in Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/05/iraq.commander/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

122
3DHS / Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees -- and (Almost) Each Other
« on: April 11, 2007, 03:49:42 PM »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001457.html?nav=rss_politics
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; Page A02

Yesterday's global-warming debate between John Kerry and Newt Gingrich was, as the moderator put it, "advertised as a smack-down and a prizefight." But those labels were too modest for Kerry.

"Welcome to our environmental version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates," the former Democratic presidential nominee told the crowd in the Russell Caucus Room. "We flipped a coin, and I picked Lincoln."

But something funny happened on the way to 1858. Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker, refused to play Douglas to Kerry's Lincoln, instead positioning himself as a tree-hugging green.

Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that "we should address it very actively." Gingrich held up Kerry's new book, "This Moment on Earth," and called it "a very interesting read." He then added a personal note about saving vulnerable species from climate change. "My name, Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there's been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut," he confided.

The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of "marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers." Instead, Kerry found himself saying: "I've always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had." He added that "your statement is very, very important" and gushed: "I frankly appreciate the candor."

The debate ended. They shook hands. Kerry put an arm around Gingrich. Gingrich put an arm around Kerry. For a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug.

Before it swerved in the direction of PBS's "NewsHour," the debate had the potential to be a clash of the former titans. Both men are prone to self-inflicted verbal wounds -- Gingrich recently called Spanish the "ghetto" language, and Kerry said last year that bad students get "stuck in Iraq" -- and they had the appearance of natural adversaries.

Gingrich, stout and jowly, went largely unnoticed by the audience as he took his seat before the debate. Kerry, lean and preening, stood in the doorway until the moderator, New York University's Paul Light, inquired: "Senator, would you like to come out and join us?"

Until yesterday, Gingrich and Kerry were not likely candidates for an embrace. When Kerry was running for president in 2004, Gingrich said the senator "thrashed and smeared and lied about U.S. soldiers" and was guilty of "consistent distortion over and over and over again on every front."

But Gingrich, weighing a long-shot presidential run, is unpredictable. He proved that by meeting with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to discuss common ground on health care, and yesterday it was Kerry's turn to be surprised when Gingrich preemptively distanced himself from President Bush on global warming. "I agree entirely with whatever criticism the senator wants to make in general about the absence of American leadership," he said.

Even his one big difference with Kerry -- Gingrich favored tax incentives to reduce carbon dioxide rather than a government "cap and trade" program -- was negotiable. "I am not automatically saying that coercion and bureaucracy is not an answer," he granted.

Kerry appeared uncomfortable as Gingrich impersonated Al Gore. The senator tapped his foot, drummed his fingers, folded his arms and looked around the room with a crooked grin. He tried, at first, to lure Gingrich into a confrontation. "The essence of what I just heard from Newt," he said, is that climate change is "not such a crisis that we have to respond quickly."

But something funny happened on the way to 1858. Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker, refused to play Douglas to Kerry's Lincoln, instead positioning himself as a tree-hugging green.

Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that "we should address it very actively." Gingrich held up Kerry's new book, "This Moment on Earth," and called it "a very interesting read." He then added a personal note about saving vulnerable species from climate change. "My name, Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there's been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut," he confided.

The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of "marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers." Instead, Kerry found himself saying: "I've always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had." He added that "your statement is very, very important" and gushed: "I frankly appreciate the candor."

The debate ended. They shook hands. Kerry put an arm around Gingrich. Gingrich put an arm around Kerry. For a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug.

Before it swerved in the direction of PBS's "NewsHour," the debate had the potential to be a clash of the former titans. Both men are prone to self-inflicted verbal wounds -- Gingrich recently called Spanish the "ghetto" language, and Kerry said last year that bad students get "stuck in Iraq" -- and they had the appearance of natural adversaries.

Gingrich, stout and jowly, went largely unnoticed by the audience as he took his seat before the debate. Kerry, lean and preening, stood in the doorway until the moderator, New York University's Paul Light, inquired: "Senator, would you like to come out and join us?"

Until yesterday, Gingrich and Kerry were not likely candidates for an embrace. When Kerry was running for president in 2004, Gingrich said the senator "thrashed and smeared and lied about U.S. soldiers" and was guilty of "consistent distortion over and over and over again on every front."

But Gingrich, weighing a long-shot presidential run, is unpredictable. He proved that by meeting with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to discuss common ground on health care, and yesterday it was Kerry's turn to be surprised when Gingrich preemptively distanced himself from President Bush on global warming. "I agree entirely with whatever criticism the senator wants to make in general about the absence of American leadership," he said.

Even his one big difference with Kerry -- Gingrich favored tax incentives to reduce carbon dioxide rather than a government "cap and trade" program -- was negotiable. "I am not automatically saying that coercion and bureaucracy is not an answer," he granted.

Kerry appeared uncomfortable as Gingrich impersonated Al Gore. The senator tapped his foot, drummed his fingers, folded his arms and looked around the room with a crooked grin. He tried, at first, to lure Gingrich into a confrontation. "The essence of what I just heard from Newt," he said, is that climate change is "not such a crisis that we have to respond quickly."

Gingrich protested this mischaracterization. "We're not arguing over whether it should be urgent," he said.

Kerry persisted: "We're arguing over the level of the urgency."

"The question of urgency isn't what's being debated here," Gingrich repeated.

Finally, Kerry relented. "I'm excited to hear you talk about the urgency," he said. But "what would you say to Senator [Jim] Inhofe [R-Okla.] and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science?"

Gingrich didn't hesitate. "My message," he said, "is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere." The pro-Kerry crowd applauded.

"And do it urgently?" the senator pressed.

"And do it urgently, yeah," the former speaker replied. "I think there has to be, if you will, a green conservatism," he added.

Kerry didn't know quite what to do with his agreeable opponent. "I'm a little confused about sort of where Newt comes from on this," he said at first. Later, Kerry tried to switch places with Gingrich, branding him a big-government liberal. "You know, this is a huge transition," he exclaimed. "You actually want the government to do it. I want the private sector to do it."

By the end of the debate, Lincoln/Kerry was embracing Douglas/Gingrich as a global-warming ally, saying things such as "What we need to do is what Newt just said."

"I'll lay odds if Newt Gingrich and I were responsible for making this happen, we could get in a room and in a week, we'd come up with a program and make it happen," Kerry ventured.

Gingrich nodded. Moments later, he held up his new friend's book again. "I'm going to sell a few more books for you, John," he promised.


123
3DHS / Armenia's Murky Politics
« on: April 11, 2007, 03:43:57 PM »
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8993685&fsrc=RSS
Apr 11th 2007
From the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire

Campaigning begins for a rigged election


Campaigning for Armenia’s parliamentary election, scheduled for May 12th, began officially on April 8th. The contest will be watched closely by foreign observers, as it could predetermine the fate of the country’s political leadership. Victory in the legislative election is seen as crucial to President Robert Kocharian’s apparent plan to hand over power to his most influential associate, Serzh Sarkisian, who became prime minister on April 4th following the death in office of premier Andranik Markarian. Mr Kocharian, in power since 1998, also seems keen to retain a key role in government after completing his second and final term in office early next year.

The president and Mr Sarkisian will therefore go to great lengths to ensure that the former Soviet republic’s parliament continues to be dominated by their political allies. The latter are tipped to grab the vast majority of parliament seats through a combination of vote-rigging, vote-buying and control of the media. For this reason, there is widespread scepticism about government assurances that the elections will put an end to Armenia’s post-Soviet history of electoral fraud.

By fair means or foul
Twenty-eight parties and about two hundred individual candidates have filed for registration with the Central Election Commission to vie for 131 seats in Armenia’s National Assembly. Ninety of those seats will be up for grabs under the system of proportional representation, with the remaining 41 seats to be contested in nationwide constituencies on the first-past-the-post basis.

With credible opinion polls practically non-existent in the country, it is not easy to gauge the electoral chances of various contenders. Popularity alone will not guarantee success. In terms of ability to secure the largest number of votes, the clear frontrunner is the Republican Party of Armenia (HHK). Nominally headed by Mr Markarian until his death, it has over the past year come increasingly under the control of Mr Sarkisian.

The HHK is a typical post-Soviet “party of power” mainly comprising senior government officials, civil servants, and wealthy business people dependent on government connections. It can wield enormous administrative resources, through control of the electoral process coupled with voter intimidation and heavy televised propaganda. The Armenian press has been awash with reports of local government chiefs being instructed by party bosses to earn the HHK a particular number of votes in their respective areas at any cost or risk dismissal. Accordingly, they have reportedly been forcing scores of public sector employees such as doctors and schoolteachers to join the governing party.

The HHK’s de facto takeover by Mr Sarkisian in mid-2006 has also meant that it now enjoys the crucial backing of most members of the country’s business elite. The so-called “oligarchs” often hold sway in a particular part of the country and are in a position to bully and/or bribe voters. Many of them already helped the HHK win the previous parliamentary elections that were judged to be undemocratic by Western observers. There are no indications that the HHK will be seeking to prevail by more legitimate means this time around. A strong HHK showing is vital for the realisation of Mr Sarkisian’s presidential ambitions.

Kocharian’s choice
That Mr Sarkisian, widely regarded as Armenia’s second most powerful man, is Mr Kocharian’s preferred successor seems a given. Both men are natives of Nagorny-Karabakh who played a major role in the Armenian-populated disputed enclave’s 1991-1994 secessionist war with Azerbaijan. They have worked in tandem and jointly weathered many political storms since moving to top government positions in Yerevan in the late 1990s.

The question is just how strong Mr Kocharian would like his heir apparent to be. The 52-year-old president made it clear last December that he will not become “Armenia’s youngest pensioner” after leaving office, suggesting that he wants to continue to pull the government strings in some official capacity. There is mounting speculation that he is eying the post of prime minister. Whatever Mr Kocharian’s exact intentions, it is evident that he is trying to secure his political future by covertly sponsoring another election favourite: the Prosperous Armenia Party (BHK) of Gagik Tsarukian, the wealthiest of the local oligarchs.

The BHK launched its activities little more than a year ago and claims to have since recruited as many as 370,000 members, or 12% of the Armenian state’s population. The party is capitalising on its leader’s vast financial resources, which are being spent on distribution of agricultural relief, free medical aid, and other public services to large numbers of impoverished people. The aid, condemned as a wholesale buying of votes by opposition and even some HHK leaders, is earning Mr Tsarukian a populist appeal that should translate into solid voter support for his party on polling day. BHK supporters are too disillusioned with the traditional Armenian parties to care about a huge disparity between Mr Tsarukian’s conspicuous wealth and modest taxes levied from his businesses.

Expert opinion differs only on whether the BHK was set up as a counterweight to the governing HHK or as a powerful addition to the government camp. Despite occasional signs of friction and mutual jealousy, the two parties are unlikely to openly clash both during and in the wake of the May 12th vote. Furthermore, there is a conspiracy theory that they have already amicably divided most parliament seats between themselves and form a coalition government.

Divided opposition
The BHK phenomenon makes it easier for the Kocharian-Sarkisian duo to prevent their political opponents from having a strong presence in the next Armenian parliament. Their task is further facilitated by the failure of Armenia’s leading opposition parties to form electoral alliances. Voters hostile to the government will have a hard time picking one of more than a dozen opposition contenders with virtually identical platforms. Many of them might therefore not bother to vote at all.

The three largest opposition parties are led by Mr Kocharian’s two main challengers in the 2003 presidential election, Stepan Demirchian and Artashes Geghamian, and former parliament speaker Artur Baghdasarian. The latter’s pro-Western Country of Law Party was forced out of the governing coalition in May 2006. All three opposition leaders feel that they are popular enough to do well on their own. Only Mr Demirchian has considered teaming up with several smaller opposition parties, notably the Republic Party of Aram Sarkisian (no relation to the defense minister), a former prime minister who is the regime’s most dangerous and uncompromising foe.

Those parties failed to reach agreement even among themselves, reportedly bickering over who should be the would-be bloc’s top leader. Only two of them, Republic and the Heritage Party of the US-born former Foreign Minister Raffi Hovannisian, stand a chance of clearing the 5% threshold for entering parliament under the proportional system. The Armenian opposition also failed to put into practice Republic’s idea of fielding common candidates in the 41 single-mandate electoral districts. The individual constituencies are usually swept by wealthy pro-government candidates, and this is likely to happen once again on May 12th.

With the election likely to follow an all too familiar pattern, there is a strong possibility of joint opposition demonstrations in Yerevan in the immediate aftermath of the polls. Whether or not the opposition can pull large crowds is a different matter. Its most recent attempt to topple the government with a campaign of street protests ended in failure in spring 2004.

Aid in the balance
The US and the EU have repeatedly warned that a repeat of serious vote irregularities would be fraught with negative consequences for the Armenian authorities. The US, in particular, has tied provision of US$235 million in economic assistance to Armenia, promised under the Bush administration’s Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), to the proper conduct of the elections. But Washington will likely tread carefully now that Armenia and Azerbaijan seem to have made substantial progress towards a resolution of the Karabakh conflict, a key US foreign policy aim in the region. US and other diplomats involved in Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks say the conflicting parties will try to cut a peace deal during the period between the Armenian legislative elections and presidential ballots due in both Armenia and Azerbaijan next year.

Assuming that it really sees a chance for Karabakh peace, Washington will hardly undercut the Kocharian administration if the polls are marred by serious fraud. The EU may likewise exercise caution, even though it has warned that a clean vote is a necessary condition for Armenia’s participation in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) framework for privileged ties with the bloc. Yet even the prospect of being left out of ENP or not receiving the badly needed MCA funds will hardly force Armenia’s two top leaders to finally hold an election according to Western standards—for them, far too much is at stake.

124
3DHS / Jupiter's Little Red Spot
« on: April 01, 2007, 02:19:48 AM »
The New Horizons Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) has returned stunning new images of Jupiter's Little Red Spot, obtained as a 2-by-2 mosaic at 0312 UTC on February 27, 2007, from a distance of 3 million kilometers (1.8 million miles). The image scale is 15 kilometers (about 9 miles) per pixel.

By comparison, team members say, ground-based and Earth-orbiting imagers rarely do better than 200-kilometer (130-mile) resolution on Jupiter.

"These LORRI images of the Little Red Spot are amazing in their detail," says New Horizons Project Scientist Dr. Hal Weaver, of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, where the spacecraft and LORRI camera were designed and built. "They show the early stages of this newly reddened storm system with a resolution that far surpasses anything available until now."

LORRI took this mosaic 9½ hours - or not quite one Jupiter rotation period - after snapping its previous images of the Little Red Spot on Feb 26, 2007, at a longer range of 3.5 million kilometers (2.2 million miles) and at a lower resolution of 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) per pixel. The new mosaic was obtained with the Little Red Spot closer to the center of the visible disk of Jupiter, so there is less foreshortening and better illumination.

The Little Red Spot is an Earth-sized storm on Jupiter that changed its color from white to red in 2005. Swimming to the east, its clouds rotate counterclockwise (or in the anticyclonic direction), meaning that it is a high-pressure region. In that sense, the Little Red Spot is the opposite of a hurricane on Earth, which is a low-pressure region - and it is of course much larger than any hurricane on Earth.

Scientists don't know exactly how or why the storm turned red - though they speculate that the change could stem from a surge of exotic compounds from deep within Jupiter, caused by an intensification of the storm system. In particular, sulfur-bearing cloud droplets might have been propelled about 50 kilometers into the upper level of ammonia clouds, where brighter sunlight bathing the cloud tops released the red-hued sulfur embedded in the droplets - causing the storm to turn red. A similar mechanism has been proposed for the Little Red Spot's "big brother," the Great Red Spot, a massive energetic storm system that has existed for centuries.

The smaller, brighter oval to the south of the Little Red Spot is another storm moving more rapidly to the east, as can be seen by comparing the previous mosaic to the newer one. Any feature that moved by as much as 100 pixels between the earlier mosaic and the new one - as many features have done - has shifted at an average relative speed faster than 95 miles per hour, indicating hurricane force winds. The awesome violence of the storms in Jupiter's atmosphere contrasts with the serene isolation of New Horizons' LORRI, snapping pictures from millions of miles away.

"The new images are further proof that LORRI is one of the best imagers ever flown on a planetary mission," says Dr. Andy Cheng, the LORRI principal investigator from the Applied Physics Laboratory, "and more delights are yet to come."

Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute

125
3DHS / Rice to visit Jordan Monday for talks with Abdullah, Abbas
« on: March 24, 2007, 04:24:59 AM »
dpa German Press Agency
Published: Saturday March 24, 2007 

Amman- US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due in
Amman on Monday for talks with King Abdullah II and Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas, official sources said Saturday.
Rice is scheduled to arrive in Cairo later Saturday at the outset
of a regional tour during which she will take part in a meeting of
the Middle East quartet in the Egyptian capital.

The quartet meeting will also be attended by foreign ministers of
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

Rice's meeting with Abbas on Tuesday will be their first encounter
since the formation of the Palestinian national unity government
earlier this month.

During his Amman visit, Abbas is due to be accompanied by Prime
Minister Ismail Haniya, who was also expected to have his first
official contacts with Jordanian officials since Hamas took power
after January 2006 elections.

The United States said that it would confine its contacts with the
new Palestinian coalition cabinet to non-Hamas ministers. The US and
EU regard Hamas as a terrorist organization and the quartet -
comprised of the US, EU, Russia and UN - has called on Hamas to
renounce violence and recognize Israel.

The talks between Rice and King Abdullah are expected to be topped
by the proposed amendment of the Arab Peace Initiative and fresh
moves to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating
table, official sources said.

During a visit to the United States earlier this month, King
Abdullah delivered a landmark speech before the two houses of the US
Congress, urging Washington to play a "historic role" in concluding a
settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

http://rawstory.com/news/dpa/Rice_to_visit_Jordan_Monday_for_tal_03242007.html

126
3DHS / US gave Israel time to continue war - Bolton
« on: March 23, 2007, 07:45:16 AM »

LONDON: The United States resisted calls for a cease-fire in last summer's Israel-Lebanon war to give Israel time to defeat Hizbullah, the former US envoy to the United Nations said.

The demand for an immediate cease-fire - backed by much of the international community but ignored for weeks by the United States and Britain - was "dangerous and misguided," John Bolton said in a BBC interview aired Thursday.

Bolton agreed with the assertion that the US had given Israel free rein.

"What was wrong with that?" Bolton said. "They had been attacked, they were responding. The fact was that Israel was subject to a military threat from Hizbullah on a continuous basis. Hizbullah had committed an act of aggression and Israel was reacting in its own self-defense. And if reacting in its own self-defense meant the defeat of the enemy, that was perfectly legitimate, under international law and frankly under good politics."

The United States eventually backed diplomatic moves for a cease-fire and the deployment of international peacekeepers to end the 34-day conflict.

Approximately 1,200 people were killed in Lebanon during the fighting. Most were Lebanese civilians. A total of 159 Israelis, mainly soldiers, were also killed in Hizbullah clashes with Israeli troops and by Hizbullah rockets lobbed into Israel.

Israel failed to achieve its main goals - destroying Hizbullah and returning two Israeli soldiers captured by Hizbullah.

Bolton, who stepped down from his UN post in December after failing to gain Senate ap-proval, said he was "damned proud of what we did."

Bolton was interviewed for a BBC radio documentary on the war to be broadcast in full next month. The former ambassador r is writing a book about his days at the UN titled "Surrender is Not an Option."

British Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells said Bolton's remarks came as a surprise.

"I certainly didn't get the sense that there was some sort of formal collusion between the Americans and the Israelis," he told the BBC.

A Hizbullah spokesperson said Bolton's comments indicate that the US administration is responsible for the war, "as a main partner in carrying out a joint US/Israeli policy aimed at the Lebanese people which Israel carried out."

"This confirms all we have said in the past, that the US ... which gave the green light, along with Israel, are responsible for the killing of Lebanese children and all the destruction brought on to the country."

"It also confirms what we have said ... This is an administration of war that aims to create 'destructive chaos' in the region, it is a terrorist administration and all its members' hands are stained with the blood of Lebanese children as well as the children of Iraq and Palestine."

The spokesperson asked what position members of the March 14 Forces would take now of a man they once called a friend: "Bolton's statements condemn those who consider him a friend as he is only a friend to the Israeli enemy." - AP, with additional reporting by Hani M. Bathish

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=80765

127
3DHS / Genocide Bill Divides US and Turkey
« on: March 23, 2007, 07:42:58 AM »
Ankara is deeply unhappy about an effort in the US Congress to pass a bill declaring the 1917 massacre of Armenians by the Turks to be a case of genocide. Turkey has warned it could sever military ties if the law goes through.

A push in the United States Congress to pass a bill condemning the 1915 Armenian massacre under the Ottoman Empire as a case of genocide is threatening to put yet another strain on ties between Turkey and the US, which are already strained.

Turkey has threatened to take dramatic steps against its NATO partner if the bill passes, including a curtailing of military cooperation between the two countries.

"The consequences of such a step would go beyond the imaginable and would have a lasting effect," the Turkish Foreign Ministry in Ankara warned last week. Mehmet Dulger, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee in the Turkish parliament as a member of the ruling AKP party, warned that Turkey might even go so far as to restrict American access to Incirlik Air Base.

The base is of major strategic importance to the US, which uses it to supply its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ankara's refusal in 2003 to permit US troops to cross into northern Iraq through Turkey triggered the current tensions.

For its part, the Bush administration is seeking to stop Congress from pushing through the resolution. In a March 7 letter, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned leading members of Congress about the potential fallout the bill could have for US-Turkish relations. And on Wednesday, Rice cautioned that the US should not get involved in the dispute over the mass-killings, which resulted in the deaths of as many as 1.5 million Armenians.

In February, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and Yasar Buyukanit, chief of the general staff for the Turkish Armed Forces, began a political offensive against Washington, saying that Ankara considers the massacre to be a tragic act of violence that happened in the context of World War I but not genocide.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House, made her view very clear: She didn't even receive Foreign Minister Gul.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,druck-472826,00.html


128
3DHS / Was Mr. Rogers really a Navy SEAL? -- ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
« on: March 20, 2007, 11:45:29 AM »
Was Mr. Rogers really a Navy SEAL?
Dave
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
 
Dear Dave:
We get bizarre questions all the time, but your inquiry regarding the military exploits of Fred "Won't You Be My Neighbor" Rogers is one of the strangest.

Here's the deal -- there's a popular email forward detailing a story the late Lee Marvin allegedly told Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show." In the story, Marvin modestly talks of his war service and explains there was a man he served with who was much braver. That guy's name was Bob Keeshan, who went on to become TV's "Captain Kangaroo." The email also mentions another iconic TV figure -- Mr. Rogers. Apparently, Rogers was once a Navy SEAL with "25 confirmed kills" in the Vietnam War.

Interesting stories, but completely false. We discovered the truth at BreakTheChain.org, a site dedicated to debunking urban legends. While Marvin and Keeshan did serve in the Marines, they never fought together. Marvin fought at Iwo Jima, but Keeshan never saw action, having signed up too late. As for Fred Rogers, he never served in the military.

So, there you have it -- another urban legend cleared up. Now, if you'll excuse us, we have to go research whether or not John Wayne was actually a Communist.
 
http://ask.yahoo.com/20070320.html

129
3DHS / Iran's War Within
« on: March 18, 2007, 05:25:27 PM »
Thursday, Mar. 15, 2007
Iran's War Within
By Scott MacLeod

The scene was like the Iranian answer to March Madness. At Amir Kabir University of Technology in Tehran this past December, a crowd of several thousand packed the school's auditorium. On one side were hundreds of members of the Basij, a volunteer paramilitary force controlled by Iranian hard-liners, who had been bused in to cheer their most prominent alumnus, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They waved placards and roared as Ahmadinejad boasted about Iran's growing power and dared the country's enemies to challenge it. But in the back of the room, a group of 50 activists burned an effigy of the President, set off firecrackers and interrupted his speech with chants of "Death to the dictator!" Ahmadinejad grinned tightly and struggled to finish, but few people would remember what he said. At the height of his power, in a time and place of his choosing, Iran's President had been upstaged.

This is not the image of Ahmadinejad-- the bombastic, headline-grabbing populist --the world has grown used to. Since his election in 2005, Ahmadinejad has become the most prominent Iranian on the global stage since Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, the guiding hand of the country's 1979 Islamic revolution. Ahmadinejad owes his visibility partly to Iran's rise as a regional power and partly to his penchant for spouting what U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns calls "the most abhorrent, irresponsible rhetoric of any global leader in many years." It's that rhetoric, along with Iran's meddling in Iraq and pursuit of nuclear technology, that has brought Tehran closer to a confrontation with the U.S. than at any time in the past three decades. "They are saying their words," Ahmadinejad said in an interview with Time two days after the protest at Amir Kabir University, "and I am saying mine."

But politics in Iran is not always what it seems. Behind Ahmadinejad's defiance, a struggle is under way that could determine the future of Tehran's nuclear program, its relationship with Washington and the potential for another war in the Middle East. Inside Iran's political establishment, Ahmadinejad has provoked a counterreaction from those who believe his posturing has damaged Iran's economy and its hopes for a rapprochement with the West. Most Iranian leaders and the public believe in Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But a real split has emerged between hard-liners allied with Ahmadinejad, who are willing to risk international sanctions and even the threat of a U.S. military strike in a quest to become a nuclear power, and pragmatists, who might accept limits on Iran's program in order to win political benefits from the West that would preserve the current regime's hold on power. Reflecting the success of recent U.N. sanctions against Tehran, officials in Iran say the consensus seems to be tilting toward less confrontation, more negotiation.

No one believes a breakthrough is imminent. Burns tells Time that the U.S. is close to winning a consensus in the Security Council for a second set of sanctions targeting arms sales and export credits to Iran. "They need to suspend their enrichment program before we will sit down and talk to them," he says. "That condition is well known to the Iranians, and we will stand by it." The opposition to Ahmadinejad has yet to coalesce into a political movement. But, says George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "it has given internationalists in Iran space to engage the West, though they ... will be afraid to settle for less than Ahmadinejad rejected."

Western diplomats hope those pragmatists will ultimately gain the upper hand, but their ascendancy would likely be halted if Tehran and Washington went to war. And so the question is whether, having got so much wrong about the region over the past four years, the U.S. and its allies can get this one right.

To understand the sources of the backlash against Ahmadinejad, it's important to remember where he came from: nowhere. Until 2003, Ahmadinejad had had little experience in public life. He served as governor of Ardabil province before being replaced by reformist President Mohammed Khatami, who took office in 1997. Ahmadinejad was appointed mayor of Tehran in 2003 after a municipal-council election in which just 6% of voters participated. His victory in the 2005 presidential election was an even bigger fluke. He ran a low-key campaign, focused on corruption and directing Iran's oil wealth to the poor. After sneaking into second place past six other contenders, he beat former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the runoff.

Ahmadinejad is the first nonmullah to be Iran's President since 1981. Though Westerners are concerned by his inflammatory rhetoric toward Israel, it's his domestic policies that have irked Iran's already skeptical political establishment. Early in his tenure, he sacked thousands of bureaucrats and sought to replace them with unqualified cronies. He tossed Rafsanjani and Khatami out of fancy quarters in the presidential compound that they had maintained as former officeholders. He angered members of his own party in the Majlis, or Parliament, by refusing to put their supporters on the public payroll. In response, the Majlis rejected several of Ahmadinejad's Cabinet appointees, including three nominees for the crucial post of Oil Minister.

Opposition to Ahmadinejad transcends the split between conservatives and reformists that has defined Iranian politics for the past decade. Last summer 50 Iranian economists wrote him a letter decrying his policies, which have frozen investment and precipitated a 26% drop in the value of the Tehran stock market. In January some of the President's former allies formed a faction to oppose him. "The Parliament today is at the point of explosion," says Mohammed Atrianfar, a Rafsanjani adviser. "The volume of criticism emanating out is unprecedented in the last century of Iranian politics."

The opposition has revolved around two figures: Mehdi Karroubi, a moderate cleric who was once Speaker of Parliament, and Rafsanjani, the powerful former President, who prizes economic growth over democracy and Islamic ideology. Ahmadinejad also has problems outside Tehran. In the holy city of Qum, south of the capital, Ahmadinejad has offended the grand ayatullahs, who act as the country's spiritual leaders. Most irritating have been his frequent allusions to his connection to the Hidden Imam, the last in a line of descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, who Shi'ites believe will return at the end of the world to bring absolute justice to mankind. "Not only does he not talk about the sort of things a President is supposed to talk about," says Atrianfar, "but he talks about religious beliefs, a subject for which he is wholly unfit. This is not appreciated."

So where does that leave Ahmadinejad? The Parliament cannot on its own dump him, and he has a little over two years left in his term. Impeachment proceedings require approval of the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who has yet to repudiate Ahmadinejad. "If Parliament senses for a second that Khamenei has withdrawn his support, the government will fall," says Atrianfar. A politician close to Rafsanjani tells Time, "Most of the decision makers and the élite are against him. If he becomes less popular, even the Supreme Leader will withdraw his support."

That's not happening yet. Ahmadinejad complements Khamenei's leadership. As a noncleric, he is not a religious rival like Rafsanjani, and unlike the reformist Khatami, who challenged some of the Islamic republic's founding tenets, Ahmadinejad supports velayat-e faqih, or rule by the clergy. He refers to the Supreme Leader as agha, a title expressing extreme deference, and kissed Khamenei's hand at his presidential inauguration.

But there are signs that Khamenei may try to rein in Ahmadinejad before he causes more trouble. An editorial in Jomhouri Eslami, a daily that reflects the views of the Supreme Leader, blasted the President for dismissing U.N. sanctions against Iran as a "piece of torn paper." A paper by the Majlis foreign-affairs committee reportedly warned about the negative economic impact of further sanctions and urged that "everything be done"--apart from sacrificing national honor--to head them off.

That may provide an opportunity for the Bush Administration. Ahmadinejad's slide has convinced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the strategy of ratcheting up economic pressure on the Tehran regime is producing results. The U.S. believes the squeeze on Iran has yielded more conciliatory signals from the Iranians on the nuclear issue. The chemistry between U.S. and Iranian diplomats at a March 10 conference about Iran's future in Baghdad suggests that those favoring a resolution may be seeing some opportunities. Both sides agreed the meeting was "constructive," and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad termed the exchanges "frank and sometimes jovial."

Some experts believe that Khamenei will ultimately support a compromise with Western negotiators. Iranian sources tell Time that Ali Larijani, the country's top nuclear negotiator, wants to resurrect talks to resolve the nuclear impasse with European Union foreign-policy chief Javier Solana. The challenge is to find a formula that enables Iran to obtain enriched uranium for civilian energy production while allaying suspicion that it is diverting the material to a weapons program. The outlines of one such proposal have been given to Time (see accompanying article).

The bigger question may be whether the Bush Administration will ever accept Iran's motives as sincere. It's nearly impossible to imagine the U.S. striking a deal with an Iran led by an assertive Ahmadinejad, especially given his threats against Israel. And the U.S. insists it will not tolerate Iran's keeping any enrichment technologies on its soil. The emergence of pragmatic voices in Tehran, however, has made détente at least as plausible as a military confrontation. That the two sides have traveled even that far toward compromise is encouraging. But it's also a reminder of how far they still have to go.


With reporting by Elaine Shannon/Washington

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599710,00.html

130
3DHS / A new face of jihad vows attacks on U.S.
« on: March 16, 2007, 07:45:28 AM »
By Souad Mekhennet and Michael Moss
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/16/africa/web-0316profile.php
Friday, March 16, 2007

TRIPOLI, Lebanon: Deep in a violent and lawless slum just north of this coastal city, 12 men whose faces were shrouded by scarves drilled with Kalashnikovs.

In unison, they lunged in one direction, turned and lunged in another. "Allah-u akbar," the men shouted in praise to God as they fired their machine guns into a wall.

The men belong to a new militant Islamic organization called Fatah al Islam, whose leader, a fugitive Palestinian named Shakir al-Abssi, has set up operations in a refugee camp here where he trains fighters and spreads the ideology of Al Qaeda.

He has solid terrorist credentials. A former associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia who was killed last summer, Abssi was sentenced to death in absentia along with Zarqawi in the 2002 assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan, Laurence Foley. Just four months after arriving here from Syria, Abssi has a militia that intelligence officials estimate at 150 men and an arsenal of explosives, rockets and even an antiaircraft gun.

During a recent interview with The New York Times, Abssi displayed his makeshift training facility and his strident message that America needed to be punished for its presence in the Islamic world. "The only way to achieve our rights is by force," he said. "This is the way America deals with us. So when the Americans feel that their lives and their economy are threatened, they will know that they should leave."

Abssi's organization is the image of what intelligence officials have warned is the re-emergence of Al Qaeda. Shattered after 2001, the organization founded by Osama bin Laden is now reforming as an alliance of small groups around the world that share a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam but have developed their own independent terror capabilities, these officials have said. If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has acknowledged directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and a string of other terror plots, represents the previous generation of Qaeda leaders, Abssi and others like him represent the new.

American and Middle Eastern intelligence officials say he is viewed as a dangerous militant who can assemble small teams of operatives with acute military skill.

"Guys like Abssi have the capability on the ground that Al Qaeda has lost and is looking to tap into," said an American intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Abssi has shown himself to be a canny operator. Despite being on terrorism watch lists around the world, he has set himself up in a Palestinian refugee camp where, because of Lebanese politics, he is largely shielded from the government. The camp also gives him ready access to a pool of recruits, young Palestinians whose militant vision has evolved from the struggle against Israel to a larger Islamic cause.

Intelligence officials here say that he has also exploited another source of manpower: they estimate he has 50 militants from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries fresh from fighting with the insurgency in Iraq.

The officials say they fear that he is seeking to establish himself as a terror leader on the order of Zarqawi. "He is trying to fill a void and do so in a high-profile manner that will attract the attention of supporters," the American intelligence official said.

Abssi has recently taken on a communications adviser, Abu al-Hassan, 24, a journalism student who dropped out of college to join Fatah al Islam. His current project: a newsmagazine aimed at attracting recruits.

The arc of Abssi's life shows the allure of Al Qaeda for Arab militants. Born in Palestine, from which he and family were evicted by the Israelis, Abssi, 51, said he stopped studying medicine to fly planes for Yasir Arafat. He then staged attacks on Israel from his own base in Syria. After he was imprisoned in Syria for three years on terrorism charges, he said he broadened his targets to include Americans in Jordan.

The Times arranged to speak with Abssi through a series of intermediaries, who helped set up meetings in his headquarters at the Nahr al Bared refugee camp. Abssi, a soft-spoken man with salt-and-pepper hair, was interviewed in a bare room inside a small cinderblock building on the edge of a field where training was under way. About 80 men were in the compound, performing various tasks, including one who manned an antiaircraft gun. As Abssi spoke, two aides took notes, while a third fiddled with a submachine gun. A bazooka leaned against the wall behind him.

In a 90-minute interview, his first with Western reporters, Abssi said he shared Al Qaeda's fundamentalist interpretation and endorsed the creation of a global Islamic nation. He said killing American soldiers in Iraq was no longer enough to convince the American public that its government should abandon what many Muslims view as a war against Islam.

"We have every legitimate right to do such acts, for isn't it America that comes to our region and kills innocents and children?" Abssi said. "It is our right to hit them in their homes the same as they hit us in our homes.

"We are not afraid of being named terrorists," he added. "But I want to ask, is someone who detonates one kilogram a terrorist while someone who detonates tons in Arab and Islamic cities not a terrorist?"

When asked, Abssi refused to say what his targets might be.

[This week, Lebanese law enforcement officials said they arrested four men from Fatah al Islam in Beirut and other Lebanese cities and were charging them with the February bombing of two commuter buses carrying Lebanese Christians. Abssi denies any involvement and says he has no plans to strike within Lebanon.]

Fertile Soil for Militants

Inside the Palestinian camp, Abssi seems to be building his operation with little interference.

Major General Achraf Rifi, general director of Lebanon's Internal Security Forces, says the government does not have authority to enter a Palestinian camp — even though Abssi is now wanted in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria on terrorism charges.

To enter the camps, he said, "We would need an agreement from other Arab countries." He said that instead the government was tightening its cordon around the camp to make it harder for Abssi or his men to slip in and out.

Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon have long been fertile ground for militancy, particularly focused on the fight against Israel. But militants in those camps now have a broader vision. In Ain el Hilwe camp, an hour's drive south of Beirut, another radical Sunni group, Asbat al Ansar, has been sending fighters to Iraq since the start of the war, its leaders acknowledged in interviews.

"The U.S. is oppressing a lot of people," the group's deputy commander, who goes by the name of Abu Sharif, said in a room strewn with Kalashnikovs. "They are killing a lot of innocents, but one day they are getting paid back." A leading sheik in the camp, Jamal Hatad, has a television studio that broadcasts 12 hours a day with shows ranging from viewer call-ins to video of Bin Laden's statements and parents proudly displaying photographs of their martyred children.

"I was happy," Hamad Mustaf Ayasin, 70, recalled in hearing last fall that his 35-year-old son, Ahmed, had died in Iraq fighting American troops near the Syrian border. "The U.S. is against Muslims all over the world."

On the streets of the camp, one young man after another said dying in Iraq was no longer their only dream.

"If I had the chance to do any kind of operation against anyone who is against Islam, inside or outside of the United States, I would do the operation," said Mohamed, an 18-year-old student, who declined to give his last name.

Hussein Hamdan, 19, who keeps a poster of Osama bin Laden in the bedroom he shares with two sisters, is a street tough attuned to religious fundamentalism. He dropped out of school at age 10, spent 18 months in jail on assault charges, and in March — "just to make a statement," he said — took a razor and repeatedly slashed both his forearms. "I want to become a mujahedeen and go to jihad in any country where there are Jews or Americans to fight against them," he said.

Lebanon has increasingly become a source of terror suspects. One of the Sept. 11 hijackers came from Lebanon, as did six men charged with planting bombs on German trains last summer. Two other Lebanese men and a Palestinian were among those accused last spring of plotting to blow up the PATH train tunnels beneath the Hudson River.

The Killing of Innocents

Abssi said he derived much of his spiritual guidance from Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-Bukhari, a ninth-century Islamic scholar. A recent study by the Defense Department's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, New York, listed Bukhari among the 20 Islamic scholars who had greater influence today among militant Arabs than Bin Laden.

"Originally, the killing of innocents and children was forbidden," Abssi said. "However, there are situations in which the killing of such is permissible. One of these exceptions is those that kill our women and children."

"Osama bin Laden does make the fatwas," Abssi said, using the Arabic word for Islamic legal pronouncements. "Should his fatwas follow the Sunnah," or Islamic law, he said, "we will carry them out."

His closest known association with Zarqawi involved the killing of Foley. In previously undisclosed court records obtained by The Times, Jordanian officials say that Abssi helped organize the assassination, working closely with Zarqawi.

A senior administrator for the United States Agency for International Development, Foley was leaving his home in Amman on Oct. 28, 2002, when he was shot at close range by a man who had hidden in his garage. Seven bullets from a 7-millimeter pistol struck his neck, face, chest and stomach, the Jordanian government said in court papers.

Eleven men were charged in the case, and two men have been hanged, including the gunman, Salem Sa'ad Salem bin Saweed. According to the court records, Saweed met Abssi five years earlier in Syria, where they became friends and "arranged military operations against American and Jewish interests in Jordan." Zarqawi provided the $10,000, along with $32,000 more for additional attacks, the court papers say. But in meeting Saweed, Zarqawi told him to work through Abssi, who helped the gunman with money, logistics and training in weapons and explosives.

Saweed and an accomplice in Jordan chose Foley as a target by watching his neighborhood for cars bearing diplomatic plates.

A Valid Target

In the interview with The Times, Abssi acknowledged working with Zarqawi. He said he played no part in Foley's death, but considered him a valid target. "I don't know what Foley's role was but I can say that any person that comes to our region with a military, security or political aim, then he is a legitimate target," he said.

[ Foley's widow, Virginia Foley, said Wednesday that she thought her husband's killers had either been killed or jailed. "I'm appalled and surprised that there is still somebody out there," she said, when told of Abssi's current activities.]

The American intelligence official said the prosecution of Foley's killers was under the control of the Jordanians.

At the time of Foley's death, Abssi had been in jail for two months, having been arrested on charges of plotting attacks inside Syria. He ultimately served three years in prison, says Mounir Ali, a spokesman for the Ministry of Information.

Ali denied recent reports in Lebanon that Syria sent Abssi to that country to stir trouble there. "This accusation is baseless," Ali said. "After he was set free he restarted his terrorist activities by training elements in favor of Al Qaeda."

He said Syria sought his arrest in late January, but discovered Abssi had "disappeared, and no one knew where he went."

Late last November, Abssi moved into the Palestinian camp here, seized three compounds held by a secular group, Fatah al Intifada, raised his group's black flag, and issued a declaration saying he was bringing religion to the Palestinian cause. Abssi reappeared on Jordan's radar in January when police had a three-hour battle with two suspected terrorists in the northern Jordanian city of Irbid, killing one of the men. Authorities say they learned that Abssi had sent the men. A short while later, Lebanese authorities picked up two Saudi Arabian men leaving Abssi's camp, and learned both men had fought in Iraq. Two more men were found leaving the camp in February, Rifi said.

Rifi said officials were trying to learn as much as possible about Abssi's operation from sources and surveillance, but it was clear that their information was limited. In questioning people, security officials are showing a photograph of Abssi that is 30 years old, though it displays his most distinctive feature — two moles, one on each side of his nose.

The apparent inability to apprehend Abssi provokes fury in the men who are hunting him. A security official in one of the countries where he is wanted scowled when asked why Abssi was operating freely: "I can go lots of places to grab people, but I can't grab him."

In the interview with The Times, Abssi said he had been largely warmly received in the Palestinian camp, and that he was optimistic about his cause. "One of the reasons for choosing this camp is our belief that the people here are close to God as they feel the same suffering as our brothers in Palestine," he said.

"Today's youth, when they see what is happening in Palestine and Iraq, it enthuses them to join the way of the right and jihad," he said. "These people have now started to adopt the right path."

131
3DHS / Israel sees rapid exit from Iraq endangering Jordan
« on: March 16, 2007, 07:43:01 AM »
Israel is right on the mark with their assessment of rapid withdrawal from Iraq, IMO.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=838639&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1
 
Israel is worried a hasty American withdrawal from Iraq could topple the Hashemite regime in Jordan, one of the reasons why Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and others publicly oppose such a move.

Olmert voiced his opposition in a live video speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Tuesday, speaking out strongly against a rapid American exit from Iraq.

Senior Israeli government officials later said Olmert was expressing his opinion "solely on the professional aspect" of a pullout and insisted, as did Olmert in his speech, that Israel has no interest in getting involved in America's domestic political dispute over Iraq. Nevertheless, the official Israeli position as expressed by Olmert contradicts the views of a majority of Americans, who favor a speedy pullout.

Olmert spoke out publicly in part due to an assessment he has received from the security services, who say a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq before that country has stabilized would have immediate repercussions on the domestic situation in Jordan. These effects could even threaten the stability of the Hashemite monarchy. Israel views Jordan as a strategic asset whose stability is a vital Israeli interest.

However, Israel is not concerned solely about Jordan's fate, it fears that stability throughout the region would be undermined if the United States is viewed as having lost to the extremists. "Those who are concerned for Israel's security, for the security of the Gulf states and for the stability of the entire Middle East should recognize the need for American success in Iraq, and a responsible exit," Olmert told the AIPAC conference.

One day earlier, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told AIPAC that "in a region where impressions are important, countries must be careful not to demonstrate weakness and surrender to extremists ... It is [also] true for Iraq."

Defense Minister Amir Peretz, who met in Washington this week with U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and several senior senators, expressed a similar view.

Olmert, explaining his position to a visiting delegation from the American Jewish Committee the day after his AIPAC speech, said the question of why America began the war in Iraq is currently secondary. What matters, he argued, is that given the present state of affairs in Iraq, if America were to leave now, it would lose its authority throughout the Middle East.

Amiram Barkat adds:

On Thursday, Olmert urged a visiting delegation of leaders of the Reform Movement to reconsider a motion urging the U.S. government to set a firm timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq. The movement's executive, representing some 700 Reform congregations across the U.S., approved the motion by a large majority earlier this week.

Olmert reiterated his argument that a hasty withdrawal could endanger Israel's security as well as efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program. But the Reform leaders refused his request, saying they believe a rapid withdrawal would serve Israeli and Western interests better than a prolonged American stay in Iraq.

132
3DHS / For a young Iraqi woman, a second chance to learn and grow
« on: March 11, 2007, 04:01:12 AM »
By Claire Hajaj and Ban Dhayi
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_39020.html

WASSIT, Iraq, 9 March 2007 - In a small classroom in southern Iraq, Reem (not her real name), 22, is bent over her books. The stifling air is making it hard to concentrate, but she is determined to finish the lesson. She knows the few hours she spends here could determine the course of the rest of her life.

This is Reem’s second chance to finish primary school, 12 years after she thought she had to leave learning behind forever.

The journey back to the classroom has been the most challenging of Reem’s life. Born into a poor family, she left school at the age of 10 to help her mother manage the house and look after her younger siblings. She married while still a teenager.

Tragic turn of events

In 2004, Reem’s life took a tragic turn. Two weeks after she gave birth to her first baby, her husband left to buy medicine for their daughter and never returned. Three weeks later, his body was found in a local morgue – another casualty of the indiscriminate violence fracturing Iraq’s families.

“I did not know what to do,” says Reem. “I married at 17 and had no means of support other than my husband. My daughter was just 13 days old and I feared for our future.”

Reem returned to her family, but found little relief there. Household resources were already stretched to the limit, with nine people squeezing into one small apartment. Reem’s father and brothers were all jobless. The family’s only income was generated by her mother, who worked as both a seamstress and a midwife to make ends meet.

One day, Reem and her parents received a visit from the principal of the local girls’ school, who had a surprising proposition.

“She told us about a new learning opportunity supported by UNICEF, called the Accelerated Learning Programme,” Reem says. “It was for boys and girls who are working or have family problems preventing them from joining regular school. Other girls in the neighbourhood had been talking about this programme, and I hoped so much that I could join.”

A crucial alternative

The Accelerated Learning Programme (ALP) offers a second chance to young people who left the education system prematurely, allowing them to attend lessons outside normal school hours and even sit for their final exams. Launched by UNICEF and the Ministry of Education in 2005, the innovative programme has become one of Iraq’s most successful and inspiring education initiatives.

Over 14,000 young people passed their primary and intermediate exams in 2006 thanks to ALP. This year 22,000 are enroled.

Non-formal learning opportunities such as ALP are a crucial alternative for many of Iraq’s young people. The country’s education standards have been declining since the mid-1990s as a result of years of economic deprivation and chronic under-investment. Most of the children who leave school early are girls.

And with the current violence and displacement putting even more pressure on families, attendance rates are falling.

Securing her future

Reem’s ‘class’ included students of all ages, some of them also mothers of young children. ALP classes are held in the afternoon, making them suitable for young women who have children to look after or morning chores to do. Students are provided with basic educational materials such as stationery, textbooks and backpacks.

Reem and her fellow students have now graduated to the intermediate curriculum. ALP is helping them get critical qualifications, giving them support to cope with difficult and sometimes traumatic life events, and boosting their self-esteem.

Now that her daughter is two years old, Reem knows she must strive to secure her future. For the first time in years, she believes this might be possible.

“The ALP is my golden chance,” says Reem, who wants to be a teacher when she completes her studies. “Today I hope that I can obtain a normal school degree that helps me find a decent job. I can relieve the burden on my mother and give my daughter a good future – something I could not have achieved without a school certificate.”


133
3DHS / I Know You Are, But What Am I?
« on: March 11, 2007, 03:47:01 AM »
U.S., Iran Trade Barbs in Direct Talks
The Associated Press

By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

March 10, 2007
In their first direct talks since the Iraq war began, U.S. and Iranian envoys traded harsh words and blamed each other for the country's crisis Saturday at a one-day international conference that some hoped would help end their 27-year diplomatic freeze.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened the conference with an appeal for all participants to help ease his country's plight and prevent the violent conflict here from spilling over into the entire Middle East.

But the conference underscored the wide gulf between American and Iranian views over the nature of the crisis and the ways to end it.

During the talks, U.S. envoy David Satterfield pointed to his briefcase which he said contained documents proving Iran was arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq.

'Your accusations are merely a cover for your failures in Iraq,' Iran's chief envoy Abbas Araghchi shot back, according to an official familiar to the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, only said that American delegates exchanged views with the Iranians 'directly and in the presence of others' during talks, which he described as 'constructive and businesslike.'

But Labid Abbawi, a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official who attended the meeting, confirmed that an argument broke out between the Iranian and American envoys. He would not elaborate.

Before the talks, U.S. officials said the Baghdad conference would allow all sides to spell out their positions frankly and pave the way for more substantive discussions on resolving the Iraq crisis.

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, appealed for international help to sever networks aiding extremists and warned that Iraq's growing sectarian bloodshed could spill across the Middle East.

Khalilzad also urged nations bordering Iraq _ which include Syria and Iran _ to increase their assistance to al-Maliki's government, saying 'the future of Iraq and the Middle East is the defining issue of our time.'

'(Iraq) needs support in this battle that not only threatens Iraq but will spill over to all countries in the region,' al-Maliki said.

Al-Maliki urged for help in stopping financial support, weapon pipelines and 'religious cover' for the relentless attacks of car bombings, killings and other attacks that have pitted Iraq's Sunnis against majority Shiites.

Underscoring the security crisis, at least two mortar shells exploded near the Foreign Ministry where the talks were held but caused no casualties. A suicide car bomber also killed 20 people in the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City.

The participants at the talks included all of Iraq's neighbors _ Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait _ as well as the U.S., Russia, France, Britain, China, Bahrain, Egypt, the U.N., the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League.

At a news conference after the meeting, Araghchi restated Tehran's demands for a clear timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, which he insisted had made Iraq a magnet for extremists from across the Muslim world.

'For the sake of peace and stability in Iraq ... we need a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces,' said Araghchi, Iran's deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs.

'Violence in Iraq is good for no country in the region,' he said. 'Security of Iraq is our security and stability in Iraq is a necessity for peace and security in the region.'

Araghchi said he had no face-to-face, private talks with Khalilzad and that the discussions were 'within the framework of the meeting.' He spoke of 'very good interaction by all the delegations.'

Khalilzad, too, called the meeting a 'first step.'

'The discussions were limited and focused on Iraq and I don't want to speculate after that,' said the Afghan-born Khalilzad, who greeted Araghchi in the Persian language.

He told reporters in a conference call after the session that he took it as a good sign Iran and Syria both pledged support for a stable Iraq, including reconciliation among Iraq's factions.

'I think one has to be cautious about exaggerating the impact of what has happened, but what has happened in my view cannot be dismissed,' Khalilzad said. 'It was a good meeting.'

Nevertheless, the discussions illustrated the deep differences between Tehran and Washington, although each insists that full-scale civil war is in neither country's interest.

'Regarding security, we have channels that we can put to use,' Araghchi told The Associated Press. 'We are ready for any help we can give to Iraq.'

Reza Amiri, a senior official at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, dismissed American claims that Tehran was destabilizing Iraq by arming Shiite militias. The U.S. military has insisted that Iranian weapons, including a new generation of powerful roadside bombs, have killed more than 170 U.S. and coalition troops here since mid-2004.

'They're lying because it is just not true,' Amiri told the AP. 'Iraq's borders with Iran are the most secure of Iraqi borders. The Iraqi government has not even once said Iran is interfering in its affairs.'

But Amiri said Saturday's conference was 'very positive' because 'everyone promised to cooperate with each other and to control the borders.'

The delegates proposed an 'expanded' follow-up meeting, which could include the G-8 nations and others, in Istanbul, Turkey, next month. Iraqi officials, however, say they will urge that the next meeting take place again in Baghdad.

For Iran, opening more direct contacts with Washington could help promote their shared interests in preventing full-scale war between Sunnis and Shiites. Iran has influence among Shiite political parties with ties to militias.

'Security of Iraq is our security and stability in Iraq is a necessity for peace and security in the region,' Araghchi said at the news conference.

The Baghdad talks come as the U.S. administration has toughened its rhetoric on Iran and flexed its muscles at the U.N. over Tehran's disputed nuclear program. The tough talk has been accompanied by the arrival of two U.S. carrier battle groups near the Iranian shores in the Persian Gulf.

Iranians increasingly fear that a U.S. attack is imminent despite American insistence to the contrary.

The U.S. and Iran severed diplomatic ties after Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran following the 1979 Islamic revolution. In the late 1990s, U.S. and Iranian envoys were part of an eight-nation group studying Afghanistan's troubles under the Taliban, and both nations took part in meetings to establish an interim Afghan government after the Taliban's fall in 2001.

In 2000, a four-member U.S. congressional delegation met with Iran's parliament speaker, Mehdi Karroubi, and others for informal talks during a worldwide gathering of lawmakers in New York.

Iranian analyst Saeid Leylaz said the Baghdad conference would be a non-starter if it's not followed by a one-on-one dialogue between Washington and Tehran.

'How can you expect us to talk to them about Iraq's security without Iran's security being part of the talks?' said Leylaz.

He said only a 'constructive and strategic dialogue between Tehran and Washington' would resolve the Iraq problem.

'Tehran could help temporarily in Iraq,' said Leylaz, 'but for an everlasting solution, talks should comprise of security guarantees for the whole region,' said Leylaz.

'The Americans must understand the question of security is a matter of life and death for Iran,' he said. And no where is that security as vital for Iran as on its borders with Iraq.

___

Associated Press writers Brian Murphy in Baghdad and Anne Gearan in Washington contributed to the story.

http://www.topix.net/content/ap/3610080076233541641230903562873805129871

134
3DHS / Question for Sirs, the Headache Expert
« on: March 06, 2007, 08:16:04 PM »
HA! I guess the title of this post can be taken a couple of different ways!  :D

But seriously, Sirs, knowing that you are a long-time sufferer of migraine headaches, help me out here.

Over the past several months, I've had headaches that have gotten worse, and hurt worse than any headaches I've ever had before. I hesitate to call them migraines because they don't totally incapacitate me, I can resolve them with a hefty dose of ibuprofen usually within an hour (although repeat doses are often needed throughout the day), but they DO leave me moaning and groaning and holding my head in my hands for a while, and some are bad enough to wake me up out of a dead sleep (as the one I have now did just a while ago - middle of the night here). I can't pinpoint one spot that hurts worse than the others, but they seem to start in the back and sides of my head and work their way forward.

I looked online for more information, but nothing seemed to fit the symptoms exactly. I hoped that you might have some insight before I go make my first visit to a foreign doctor in a foreign land.  :-\

Now the weird part... stranger still, my husband has been complaining of horrible headaches too, for about the same period of time.  ???

135
3DHS / A Different Kind of Great Game
« on: March 06, 2007, 03:18:34 PM »
By Paul McLeary
Posted February 2007
 
Are China and the United States heading for a showdown over Africa?

In a trip that went almost totally unnoticed in the United States, Chinese President Hu Jintao took an eight-country jaunt across the African continent in early February, signing trade and investment agreements at every stop along the way, while forgiving debts and offering interest-free loans worth hundreds of millions more.

Within a week’s time, President Bush announced that a new combatant command for Africa, AFRICOM, would begin operations in September 2008. The new command will fill a gaping hole the United States has long left in its strategic concerns in Africa. The move to consolidate the U.S. military’s responsibilities toward the continent reflects the United States’ worry about the dangers that could rise from Africa’s weaknesses, such as its failing states and its increasing Islamic militancy.

The fact that Hu’s visit and the announcement of AFRICOM coincided was most likely a coincidence. The Pentagon has been planning AFRICOM for years, and China’s involvement in Africa is hardly new. That said, it’s obvious that both powers are sinking more assets into the continent at a time of growing instability and greater competition for resources. Although they may be ultimately drawn to Africa for different reasons, the United States and China could be headed for a collision in the most unlikely of places.

China’s interests in Africa are overwhelmingly economic. Gone are the days when China’s main interest in African countries was to ensure that they didn’t establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan. For the resource-hungry Chinese, Africa’s oil and mineral deposits are enticing, and the continent has provided a growing market for cheap Chinese textile goods. China’s trade with Africa rose from $10.6 billion in 2000 to about $55 billion in 2006, and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says China intends to increase trade with the continent to $100 billion by 2010.

A good chunk of this trade has to do with African oil. China has accounted for a full 40 percent of the total growth in global demand for oil over the last four years, and has shot past Japan as the world’s second-largest consumer of oil behind the United States. Just this past January, the Chinese energy company CNOOC Ltd. announced plans to purchase a 45 percent stake in an offshore Nigerian oil field for $2.27 billion.

For the United States, the calculus for getting more involved in Africa is vastly different. While the world’s attention has been riveted on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan for the past six years, countries in the Horn and northern Africa have seen an alarming increase in interstate conflict. There is also the resurgent Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, a terrorist group in Algeria that has just changed its name to the Al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb. AFRICOM’s portfolio will be to monitor these conflicts and groups, train indigenous militaries to confront terrorist threats, and to respond militarily, as in Somalia this past winter, when the situation arises. All that comes on top of the continued humanitarian missions regularly conducted by the Pentagon in various African countries such as Liberia. Washington now believes that the potential threats emanating from Africa are significant enough to warrant a single, coherent command structure devoted to the continent, as opposed to the past system of several combatant commands sharing responsibility and potentially working at cross purposes.

But these motivations—a pursuit of energy resources and desire to quell the most dangerous forms of instability—will probably not lead to any direct conflicts between the United States and China any time soon, if ever. Rather, if these two powers are going to come to blows in the near term, it will most likely be in the diplomatic and development arena. Although a geostrategic competition over oil supplies in Africa remains unlikely, a greater concern, according to Alex de Waal, a fellow at the Global Equity Initiative at Harvard University, is the way in which “the peace and security and democracy agenda … has been jeopardized by the Chinese weighing in with large scale uncritical support of Sudan, of Zimbabwe, and Angola.”

For years, China has been offering loans, building critical infrastructure, and providing engineering and military advice and hardware to African regimes without extracting any promises that the regimes clean up their human rights records—something Western countries insist upon before aid is shipped. This uncritical support of its African partners has allowed China to make diplomatic inroads on the continent, since it provides aid without strings attached, as opposed to the Western approach of basing aid on human rights and good governance benchmarks that many African regimes are unwilling, or slow, to make. Put simply, an African farmer would rather have a Chinese road built from his village to the market today, rather than wait for an American or World Bank road to be built only after the government makes the required reforms. Thus, it’s on human rights and governance, not oil or strict security matters, that the interests of the United States and China will likely collide.

In such a fight, China’s unfettered aid would seem to have the upper hand. But that may not necessarily be so. “In places like South Africa and Nigeria, the flood of textiles has displaced a lot of people in the textile industry,” says Jennifer Cooke, co-director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Africa Program. “And as they get more engaged, they’re going to be pushed to take up issues like worker conditions and employment quotas and corporate social responsibility issues that U.S. companies were pushed to do over the 1970s and 1980s.”

Already, there is evidence of demands for more responsibility. Hu’s planned visit to Zambia was marred by the threat of protests. Unsafe working conditions at Chinese-run copper mines and the low wages paid to local workers at Chinese businesses emerged as campaign issues in last fall’s Zambian presidential election. And in late 2006, Gabon forced a Chinese energy company to stop drilling for oil due to environmentally unsafe practices, and South African textile trade unions are loudly pressing their government to curb Chinese apparel and textiles imports.

Given their competing approaches to the continent—the humanitarian and military approach favored by the United States, and the purely economic policy favored by China—it’s clear that Africa will be the scene of some major disagreements between the two powers. The United States’ uneven track record in the war on terror doesn’t inspire much confidence, but the fact that Africa will no longer be split among several military commands is cause for some hope. It remains to be seen, however, if African regimes prefer the quick investment that China is willing to provide, or the less tangible, longer-term health and stability that the United States is promising.

Paul McLeary is a staff writer for the Columbia Journalism Review and has contributed to The Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian and The San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3744

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11