Sunday, May 10, 2009

No small prize for al Qaeda. The people of Pakistan want to end the threat of the Taliban. Kindly click here.


The third of Pakistan's new Agosta 90B submarines, PNS Hamza. Photo: DCN.

Enough troops...US won't end airstrikes...

MINGORA, Pakistan (AP) Pakistan's president is insisting that his army has enough troops in the northwest to handle the fight against Taliban militants. He tells NBC that his country's existence is at stake there. Tens of thousands more civilians fled the fighting there today during a brief lifting of a curfew.Pakistan's army says it's killed hundreds of militants since the offensive began last week.

WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama's national security adviser says the nation can't fight with "one hand tied behind our back." So, he's refusing to rule out any action in Afghanistan, and says the U.S. won't end airstrikes there. James Jones tells ABC that the U.S. will continue to act based on the best intelligence available. Afghanistan's president appealed for an end to those strikes after raids that were blamed in the deaths of dozens of civilians.

...What becomes apparent is that the Pakistani public is faced with a hydra-headed monster, and it is unable to agree on which is the greatest of all evils. Do we, the people, react to the lack of governance at the centre and the occupation of our territories by an ideological group? Do we, as a Muslim majority, protest the perversion of Islam at the hands of violent, suicide-bombing militants? Do we, as feminists, decry the violation of women’s rights? Or do we, as humanists, focus on the plight of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people who for too long have been written off as collateral damage? Indeed, understanding the paralysis of civil society in the face of the Taliban onslaught lies at the heart of the identity crisis that Pakistan has faced since its inception....

This is the common dilemma of separating church and state and yet in Muslim countries it is nearly impossible to find such a divide. To allow such 'co-mingling' of priorities with extremist groups still in force around the globe, the need for such separation is vital. However, if candidates of such countries were 'monotone' in their appearance how does one know exactly whom is being elected? Or does it matter? Is such a statement bigoted?

The analogy to the USA elections of 2000 and 2004 can be drawn. While the country, especially the election of 2000 expected an election of a President void of religious bias, it took place anyway. Once G. W. Bush was elected the landscape of the governing body in the federal authority changed and took on a unilateral Christian Conservative undertone following the flogging of the American electorate on September 11, 2001 by al Qaeda.

In countries such as Pakistan where the people desperately want peace within their borders that emulate democratic principles and freedom, the potential dangers of militiants coming to power are all to present allowing destabilization and bloodless coups.

The words of President Zardari while visiting the USA were clear. It was while his wife, Benazir, was Prime Minister that the first rumblings of destabilization occurred allowing Musharraf his claim to authority. The Pakistani people have to separate religious extremism from a benevolent religious authority. Radical religious dogma must be viewed as a threat to Pakistan's sovereignty and civil rights. Religious theology cannot be a government directive, nor should the courts reflect such bias.

It seems plainly obvious to me, the Pakistan President Zardari has a very easy task. He needs to promote the 'understanding' that citizens of Pakistan don't have to choose between religion and democratized principles within their lives. They can have both. Sorting out the 'understanding' for Pakistani citizens can be as simple as 'consenting' to have 'the best' of both while separating the authority of religion from government.

Free elections should be 'safe elections' with candidates that are trustworthy with proven benevolent human rights records.

In Muslim countries where democracy is welcome as a government and elections occur, there needs to be a 'qualifying' movement through the ranks of the political theater. In countries where violence, destabilization, civil and human rights violations are more than possible, the candidates need to qualify for elections proven in their loyality to the capacity they have shown for benevolence to the country. The people that vote, should not fear to vote and mistakenly place a violent authority in its ranks, so much as a 'strong' authority. There is a huge difference between candidates that 'strongly and determinately' govern as opposed to those that promote violence as a methodology.

In countries, such as Pakistan, the electorate still await education to the process of securing their country away from violence. They need a trusted figure, such as Benazir's spouse, President Zardari, to 'chat' with Pakistan openly regarding the decision of 'good choices' rather than 'partisan choices.' If peace is to work in Pakistan and Civil Rights take the prominent place in every election, the President needs to 'help' the citizens 'accept' responsible decision making through addresses to the country on 'processing progress' as opposed to 'reacting to events.'

Progress toward Civil Rights is far different and more predictable than 'sudden' proclamation. Democracy is not a violent or sudden process, it is a transitional process. President Zardari will find a way to talk to the people of Pakistan. He'll make it happen.

....That said, there are many Pakistanis who openly describe themselves as anti-Taliban. But what exactly does that mean? Opposition to Talibanisation has been interpreted in myriad ways: anti-violence, pro-education, pro-nationalism, anti-sectarianism, pro-democracy and more.

Reframe the question in a religious context and the debate is endless. Some Pakistanis are outraged at extremist interpretations of Islam. Others are advocating that democracy be upheld and a separation of church, rather, mosque and state be enshrined in the constitution once and for all....

The Screwballls have the day. NATO compromises peace initative by President Obama.

NATO 'military games' hostile to definition of 'global human rights.'

It has redefined limits of peace initative with any Russian involvement.

Can Obama's Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament initiative still be achieved? This is the plight of Russia all the time, standing its sovereignty while 'fighting the good fight' but receiving the worst PR on the planet. It is what caused the Cold War and fuels poor alliances between 'Nuclear Wannabee Nations.'

War Games. For God sake why? What was so idiotically important that could be FIRST be resolved by diplomatic measures?

Europe needs to 'get over' its fear of Russia. Russia is forced into aggressive stance all the time because of the 'unjustified' actions of The West. If a country cannot remove itself from 'the image' of being hostile (an enemy), even when in the face of overt FACTS otherwise (in this case the human rights abuse of Georgia of its own people), it is left to accept its 'reputation' as defined by its offenders and act in its own best interest. That is what Russia has been forced to do and continues to do.

The NATO war games were "W"rongly deployed and as long as this stance against Russia continues, it will act without regard to preceived reputation and posture itself 'as if' an enemy of The West.


Russian President Dmitry Medvedev taking part at a wreath laying ceremony at the Tomb of Unknown Soldier outside the Moscow Kremlin Photo: AP

President Obama is going to have to harness peace initiatives with not only countries like Iran and North Korea, but, Europe as well. The initative will have to dictate a purging of all definitions of 'past relationships' with Russia and find new ways to remove the posturing.

NATO war games hinder U.S.-Russia ties, Putin says (click here)
Sun May 10, 2009 11:44am BST
By Guy Faulconbridge
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned in an interview published on Sunday that NATO military exercises in Georgia did not help efforts to rebuild Moscow's relations with the United States.
Putin, speaking in an interview with Japanese media before a trip to Tokyo, said the NATO war games were a signal of support for the Georgian authorities which last week clashed with protesters demanding President Mikheil Saakashvili resign.
When asked about Washington's efforts to reset relations with Moscow, Putin said: "As to the NATO military exercises in Georgia, this is of course a signal in the other direction....


Russia doesn't have a choice to protect the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It is forced into a posture of protector and opposition to The West. This is about the most foolish motive I have ever witnessed by NATO in conducting 'military exercises' in the face of a Georgian government known to have killed its own people with overwhelming and unmerciful force.

In the same method, Prime Minister Putin hasn't formalize the efforts by Russia with these two 'estates' before the UN. BUT. Russia, being Russia, doesn't have to.


Zyuganov Would Like Moscow to Annex Abkhazia, South Ossetia (click here)
May 05, 2009
Paul Goble
The leader of the Russian Communist Party said in Strasbourg last week that in his view, it would be “desirable” if Moscow were to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia, an opinion several Russian commentators said reflected the thinking of many in the upper reaches of the government of the Russian Federation.
Speaking to Georgian journalists on the sidelines of a session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) last week, Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the KPRF, said that “history does not turn backwards” and that Moscow will “not back away from [its] recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia” (www.rusk.ru/newsdata.php?idar=182666).
And then he added that if it were up to him, “I would conduct a referendum and would include Abkhazia and South Ossetia within Russia,” a comment that was posted on the KPRF website last Thursday (kprf.ru/international/66074.html) and one that apparently reflects the generally unexpressed views of many in Moscow.
In reporting Zyuganov’s remarks, the Russkaya Liniya portal -- a Russian Orthodox site with close ties to the Russian government and statist Russian nationalists -- asked several of its regular contacts for their comments about the possibility of such a move, one that would send shockwaves not only in those two breakaway republics but across the post-Soviet space as well....


Europe and NATO is so "W"rong here its a darn shame. NATO went forward with its 'military exercise' because, '...you know how it is...you just can't let Russia believe they have the upper hand... and where after all would Europe be without the 'New Berlin Wall' of Former Soviet States.

Amazing.

In a recent assessment of the 'near border' nations of the USA, Secretary Clinton noted there is increased influence by Iran and China. The USA is compromised due to the hostile actions of the Bush/Cheney Administration. I can't believe NATO has been this stupid.