- je suivrais un cours d'intelligence émotionnelle afin de mieux comprendre mes compatriotes canadiens quand je m'adresse à eux;

- je parlerais ce dont les gens veulent vraiment entendre et non ramener le discours qui lassent les Canadiens comme ceux sur Kyoto ou l'Afghanistan;

- Je m'informerais à savoir si le Parti Vert se cherche pas un nouveau chef;

- Je m'informerais aussi pour savoir quand est-ce que le Nouveau Parti Démocratique du Canada va laisser tomber le mot Nouveau de son nom.

Si la tendance se maintient comme dis le fatiguant à Radio-Canada... On aura un gouvernement Conservateur majoritaire aux prochaines élections avec évidemment Stephen Harper comme premier ministre. Cela se produira surtout si notre Stéphane national continue à faire de la politique à sa façon et non à la façon que les électeurs veulent.

je ne serais pas surpris qu'au Québec le NPD recueille plus d'intentions que le PLQ.

From America's War Against Islamic World

By: STRATFOR

The United States has been fighting a war in the Islamic world since 2001. Its main theaters of operation are in Afghanistan and Iraq, but its politico-military focus spreads throughout the Islamic world, from Mindanao to Morocco. The situation on Aug. 7, 2008, was as follows:

The war in Iraq was moving toward an acceptable but not optimal solution. The government in Baghdad was not pro-American, but neither was it an Iranian puppet, and that was the best that could be hoped for. The United States anticipated pulling out troops, but not in a disorderly fashion.
The war in Afghanistan was deteriorating for the United States and NATO forces. The Taliban was increasingly effective, and large areas of the country were falling to its control. Force in Afghanistan was insufficient, and any troops withdrawn from Iraq would have to be deployed to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation. Political conditions in neighboring Pakistan were deteriorating, and that deterioration inevitably affected Afghanistan.
The United States had been locked in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program , demanding that Tehran halt enrichment of uranium or face U.S. action. The United States had assembled a group of six countries (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) that agreed with the U.S. goal, was engaged in negotiations with Iran, and had agreed at some point to impose sanctions on Iran if Tehran failed to comply. The United States was also leaking stories about impending air attacks on Iran by Israel or the United States if Tehran didn't abandon its enrichment program. The United States had the implicit agreement of the group of six not to sell arms to Tehran, creating a real sense of isolation in Iran.

The Russian Resurgence
In short, the United States remained heavily committed to a region stretching from Iraq to Pakistan, with main force committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility of commitments to Pakistan ( and above all to Iran ) on the table. U.S. ground forces were stretched to the limit, and U.S. airpower, naval and land-based forces had to stand by for the possibility of an air campaign in Iran — regardless of whether the U.S. planned an attack, since the credibility of a bluff depended on the availability of force.

The situation in this region actually was improving, but the United States had to remain committed there. It was therefore no accident that the Russians invaded Georgia on Aug. 8 following a Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Forgetting the details of who did what to whom, the United States had created a massive window of opportunity for the Russians: For the foreseeable future, the United States had no significant forces to spare to deploy elsewhere in the world, nor the ability to sustain them in extended combat. Moreover, the United States was relying on Russian cooperation both against Iran and potentially in Afghanistan, where Moscow's influence with some factions remains substantial. The United States needed the Russians and couldn't block the Russians. Therefore, the Russians inevitably chose this moment to strike.

On Sunday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger . Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here):

First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.
Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.
Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.
Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.
Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.
Medvedev concluded, “These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.”

The second point in this doctrine states that Russia does not accept the primacy of the United States in the international system. According to the third point, while Russia wants good relations with the United States and Europe, this depends on their behavior toward Russia and not just on Russia's behavior. The fourth point states that Russia will protect the interests of Russians wherever they are — even if they live in the Baltic states or in Georgia, for example. This provides a doctrinal basis for intervention in such countries if Russia finds it necessary.

The fifth point is the critical one: “As is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests.” In other words, the Russians have special interests in the former Soviet Union and in friendly relations with these states. Intrusions by others into these regions that undermine pro-Russian regimes will be regarded as a threat to Russia's “special interests.”

Thus, the Georgian conflict was not an isolated event — rather, Medvedev is saying that Russia is engaged in a general redefinition of the regional and global system. Locally, it would not be correct to say that Russia is trying to resurrect the Soviet Union or the Russian empire. It would be correct to say that Russia is creating a new structure of relations in the geography of its predecessors, with a new institutional structure with Moscow at its center. Globally, the Russians want to use this new regional power — and substantial Russian nuclear assets — to be part of a global system in which the United States loses its primacy.

These are ambitious goals, to say the least. But the Russians believe that the United States is off balance in the Islamic world and that there is an opportunity here, if they move quickly, to create a new reality before the United States is ready to respond. Europe has neither the military weight nor the will to actively resist Russia. Moreover, the Europeans are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas supplies over the coming years, and Russia can survive without selling it to them far better than the Europeans can survive without buying it. The Europeans are not a substantial factor in the equation, nor are they likely to become substantial.

This leaves the United States in an extremely difficult strategic position. The United States opposed the Soviet Union after 1945 not only for ideological reasons but also for geopolitical ones. If the Soviet Union had broken out of its encirclement and dominated all of Europe, the total economic power at its disposal, coupled with its population, would have allowed the Soviets to construct a navy that could challenge U.S. maritime hegemony and put the continental United States in jeopardy. It was U.S. policy during World Wars I and II and the Cold War to act militarily to prevent any power from dominating the Eurasian landmass. For the United States, this was the most important task throughout the 20th century.

The U.S.-jihadist war was waged in a strategic framework that assumed that the question of hegemony over Eurasia was closed. Germany's defeat in World War II and the Soviet Union's defeat in the Cold War meant that there was no claimant to Eurasia, and the United States was free to focus on what appeared to be the current priority — the defeat of radical Islamism. It appeared that the main threat to this strategy was the patience of the American public, not an attempt to resurrect a major Eurasian power.

The United States now faces a massive strategic dilemma, and it has limited military options against the Russians. It could choose a naval option , in which it would block the four Russian maritime outlets, the Sea of Japan and the Black , Baltic and Barents seas. The United States has ample military force with which to do this and could potentially do so without allied cooperation, which it would lack. It is extremely unlikely that the NATO council would unanimously support a blockade of Russia, which would be an act of war.

But while a blockade like this would certainly hurt the Russians, Russia is ultimately a land power. It is also capable of shipping and importing through third parties, meaning it could potentially acquire and ship key goods through European or Turkish ports (or Iranian ports, for that matter). The blockade option is thus more attractive on first glance than on deeper analysis.

More important, any overt U.S. action against Russia would result in counteractions. During the Cold War, the Soviets attacked American global interest not by sending Soviet troops, but by supporting regimes and factions with weapons and economic aid. Vietnam was the classic example: The Russians tied down 500,000 U.S. troops without placing major Russian forces at risk. Throughout the world, the Soviets implemented programs of subversion and aid to friendly regimes, forcing the United States either to accept pro-Soviet regimes, as with Cuba, or fight them at disproportionate cost.

In the present situation, the Russian response would strike at the heart of American strategy in the Islamic world. In the long run, the Russians have little interest in strengthening the Islamic world — but for the moment, they have substantial interest in maintaining American imbalance and sapping U.S. forces. The Russians have a long history of supporting Middle Eastern regimes with weapons shipments, and it is no accident that the first world leader they met with after invading Georgia was Syrian President Bashar al Assad . This was a clear signal that if the U.S. responded aggressively to Russia's actions in Georgia, Moscow would ship a range of weapons to Syria — and far worse, to Iran. Indeed, Russia could conceivably send weapons to factions in Iraq that do not support the current regime, as well as to groups like Hezbollah. Moscow also could encourage the Iranians to withdraw their support for the Iraqi government and plunge Iraq back into conflict. Finally, Russia could ship weapons to the Taliban and work to further destabilize Pakistan.

At the moment, the United States faces the strategic problem that the Russians have options while the United States does not. Not only does the U.S. commitment of ground forces in the Islamic world leave the United States without strategic reserve, but the political arrangements under which these troops operate make them highly vulnerable to Russian manipulation — with few satisfactory U.S. counters.

The U.S. government is trying to think through how it can maintain its commitment in the Islamic world and resist the Russian reassertion of hegemony in the former Soviet Union. If the United States could very rapidly win its wars in the region, this would be possible. But the Russians are in a position to prolong these wars, and even without such agitation, the American ability to close off the conflicts is severely limited. The United States could massively increase the size of its army and make deployments into the Baltics, Ukraine and Central Asia to thwart Russian plans, but it would take years to build up these forces and the active cooperation of Europe to deploy them. Logistically, European support would be essential — but the Europeans in general, and the Germans in particular, have no appetite for this war. Expanding the U.S. Army is necessary, but it does not affect the current strategic reality.

This logistical issue might be manageable, but the real heart of this problem is not merely the deployment of U.S. forces in the Islamic world — it is the Russians' ability to use weapons sales and covert means to deteriorate conditions dramatically. With active Russian hostility added to the current reality, the strategic situation in the Islamic world could rapidly spin out of control.

The United States is therefore trapped by its commitment to the Islamic world. It does not have sufficient forces to block Russian hegemony in the former Soviet Union, and if it tries to block the Russians with naval or air forces, it faces a dangerous riposte from the Russians in the Islamic world. If it does nothing, it creates a strategic threat that potentially towers over the threat in the Islamic world.

The United States now has to make a fundamental strategic decision. If it remains committed to its current strategy, it cannot respond to the Russians. If it does not respond to the Russians for five or 10 years, the world will look very much like it did from 1945 to 1992. There will be another Cold War at the very least, with a peer power much poorer than the United States but prepared to devote huge amounts of money to national defense.

There are four broad U.S. options:

Attempt to make a settlement with Iran that would guarantee the neutral stability of Iraq and permit the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces there. Iran is the key here. The Iranians might also mistrust a re-emergent Russia, and while Tehran might be tempted to work with the Russians against the Americans, Iran might consider an arrangement with the United States — particularly if the United States refocuses its attentions elsewhere. On the upside, this would free the U.S. from Iraq. On the downside, the Iranians might not want —or honor — such a deal.
Enter into negotiations with the Russians, granting them the sphere of influence they want in the former Soviet Union in return for guarantees not to project Russian power into Europe proper. The Russians will be busy consolidating their position for years, giving the U.S. time to re-energize NATO . On the upside, this would free the United States to continue its war in the Islamic world. On the downside, it would create a framework for the re-emergence of a powerful Russian empire that would be as difficult to contain as the Soviet Union.
Refuse to engage the Russians and leave the problem to the Europeans . On the upside, this would allow the United States to continue war in the Islamic world and force the Europeans to act. On the downside, the Europeans are too divided, dependent on Russia and dispirited to resist the Russians. This strategy could speed up Russia's re-emergence.

Rapidly disengage from Iraq, leaving a residual force there and in Afghanistan. The upside is that this creates a reserve force to reinforce the Baltics and Ukraine that might restrain Russia in the former Soviet Union. The downside is that it would create chaos in the Islamic world, threatening regimes that have sided with the United States and potentially reviving effective intercontinental terrorism. The trade-off is between a hegemonic threat from Eurasia and instability and a terror threat from the Islamic world.
We are pointing to very stark strategic choices. Continuing the war in the Islamic world has a much higher cost now than it did when it began, and Russia potentially poses a far greater threat to the United States than the Islamic world does. What might have been a rational policy in 2001 or 2003 has now turned into a very dangerous enterprise, because a hostile major power now has the option of making the U.S. position in the Middle East enormously more difficult.

If a U.S. settlement with Iran is impossible, and a diplomatic solution with the Russians that would keep them from taking a hegemonic position in the former Soviet Union cannot be reached, then the United States must consider rapidly abandoning its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redeploying its forces to block Russian expansion. The threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War was far graver than the threat posed now by the fragmented Islamic world. In the end, the nations there will cancel each other out, and militant organizations will be something the United States simply has to deal with. This is not an ideal solution by any means, but the clock appears to have run out on the American war in the Islamic world.

We do not expect the United States to take this option. It is difficult to abandon a conflict that has gone on this long when it is not yet crystal clear that the Russians will actually be a threat later. (It is far easier for an analyst to make such suggestions than it is for a president to act on them.) Instead, the United States will attempt to bridge the Russian situation with gestures and half measures.

Nevertheless, American national strategy is in crisis. The United States has insufficient power to cope with two threats and must choose between the two. Continuing the current strategy means choosing to deal with the Islamic threat rather than the Russian one, and that is reasonable only if the Islamic threat represents a greater danger to American interests than the Russian threat does. It is difficult to see how the chaos of the Islamic world will cohere to form a global threat. But it is not difficult to imagine a Russia guided by the Medvedev Doctrine rapidly becoming a global threat and a direct danger to American interests.

We expect no immediate change in American strategic deployments — and we expect this to be regretted later. However, given U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's trip to the Caucasus region, now would be the time to see some movement in U.S. foreign policy. If Cheney isn't going to be talking to the Russians, he needs to be talking to the Iranians. Otherwise, he will be writing checks in the region that the U.S. is in no position to cash.

By George Friedman

Link

As many as 8,000 U.S. troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by early 2009, NYT reports. But they're not coming home—at least not for long. They'll be redeployed to Afghanistan in time for spring.

These reinforcements should bolster a new Bush administration regional strategy that was explosively unveiled this week as teams of U.S. Special Forces, accompanied by Afghan troops, struck at a village within Pakistan. The raid marks the first ISAF ground assault ever taken beyond the Afghan border. (Artillery and air strikes into Pakistan, meanwhile, are not uncommon.)

Putting pressure on militants hiding out in Pakistan is a great idea. Problem is, the U.S. now faces a strengthened al-Qaeda and Taliban, it has fewer resources to divert to the campaign due to Iraq, and renewed political instability in Islamabad means weakened (covert) Pakistani support. Had the U.S. policed the border region more effectively from the beginning with Musharraf's blessing, it could have saved the growing headache over territorial sovereignty that's developing now.

Tensions in the border region are rising

At least five people have been killed in another suspected US missile strike on militant targets in Pakistan's border region, Pakistani officials say.

Officials said a missile was launched by a suspected US aircraft in the North Waziristan tribal area.

Pakistan's army says it is investigating the incident.

It would be the third attack in three days allegedly carried out by US forces, who have not officially confirmed their involvement.

Unilateral strikes

Some reports say Islamist militants were killed in Friday's attack, while local TV channels said women and children were among the dead.

Witnesses said missiles fired by an unmanned aircraft hit one or two houses in the village of Kurvek, about 30km (18 miles) west of the main town of Miranshah in North Waziristan.

"Two drones were flying in the area. They fired three missiles," one unnamed witness told Reuters news agency.

Several people are reported to have been injured in addition to those killed.

Pakistan's military spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas said reports of the incident were being investigated.

"Pakistani forces did not carry out any activity in the area," he told the AFP news agency.

This would be the third such attack in three days, including an unprecedented ground assault allegedly carried out by American commandos.

In recent months US forces have stepped up unilateral strikes on Taleban and al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan's tribal areas.

They say Pakistan - a key US ally in the "war on terror" since 2001 - is not doing enough to stem the flow of insurgents across the border into Afghanistan.

Pakistani security officials suspect the Americans are trying to hit senior al-Qaeda targets ahead of forthcoming US presidential elections, our correspondent says.

Targets

At least two senior al-Qaeda figures are believed to have been killed in US missile strikes on Pakistani territory this year.

A senior al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, was reported killed in February, while Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, described as a leading al-Qaeda chemical weapons expert, died in July, reports said.

It is not clear who the targets of strikes this week might have been.

On Thursday, at least five people were killed in a missile strike in the village of Mohammad Khel near Miranshah. Officials said all five were low-level militants of Arab origin.

Meanwhile, large numbers of people have decided to leave their settlements near Angor Adda in South Waziristan.

The town was attacked on Thursday by foreign troops carried across the border from Afghanistan by helicopter, Pakistan's government says.

Officially, the US military has no knowledge of such an incursion, but Pentagon sources have confirmed that US commandoes carried out the raid.

Pakistan responded furiously, summoning the US ambassador and calling the attack a gross violation of its sovereignty.

Pakistan's army has warned that such direct US action could rally more tribesmen behind the Taleban and incite a wider uprising. ]]> http://expressyoureself.wordpress.com/?p=905 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:16:20 +0000 expressyoureself http://expressyoureself.wordpress.com/?p=905

Ukraine 'must live without fear'

Mr Cheney aims to strengthen ties with Russia's neighbours

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has said Ukraine has the right to live without fear of invasion, adding that the US stands by its bid for NATO membership.

Mr Cheney met both the prime minister and president in Kiev, the last stop of a tour aimed at underlining support for US allies in the former Soviet Union.

Mr Cheney reassured the president that the US had a "deep and abiding interest" in Ukraine's security.

Analysts fear Ukraine could be the next flashpoint between Russia and the West.

"We believe in the right of men and women to live without the threat of tyranny, economic blackmail or military invasion or intimidation," Mr Cheney said, in an apparent reference to Russia's military intervention in Georgia.

'Hostage'

Mr Cheney arrived in Ukraine just days after the country was plunged into political turmoil.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's party blocked a motion condemning Russia's actions in Georgia, and sided with the opposition to vote for a curb on the president's powers.

Members of President Viktor Yushchenko's party walked out of the coalition government in protest, leading the president to warn that he could be forced to call a snap general election.

Mr Cheney urged the politicians to heal their divisions and be "united domestically first and foremost".

"Ukraine's best hope to overcome these threats is to be united," he said following separate meetings with Mr Yushchenko and his former ally turned political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko.

Mr Cheney expressed support for Ukraine's bid to become a member of Nato.

"Ukrainians have a right to choose whether they wish to join Nato, and Nato has a right to invite Ukraine to join the alliance when we believe they are ready and that the time is right," he said.

Russia is strongly opposed to any further expansion eastwards of Nato, and is furious that Ukraine and Georgia have been told that, one day, they will be offered membership.

But Mr Cheney - recognizing Ukraine's contributions to NATO missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo - said that no country beyond NATO would be able to block Ukraine's membership bid.

President Yushchenko says Ukraine is a hostage in a war waged by Russia against ex-Soviet bloc states.

The strategically-located country is important to Russia, with pipelines that carry Russian gas to European consumers and its Black Sea port, home to a key Russian naval base.

Russia has a powerful tool at its disposal, namely the large ethnic Russian population in Ukraine's southern province of Crimea.

Open aggression

Mr Yushchenko has restricted Russia's naval operations, and insists Moscow must leave when an inter-state treaty expires in 2017.

Ukraine has said it is ready to make its missile early warning systems available to European nations following Russia's conflict with Georgia.

Mr Cheney's visit comes at an awkward time for President Yushchenko, with the country's largely pro-Western ruling coalition divided in its attitude toward Russia.

The leaders' faltering relationship has now boiled over into open aggression, with Mr Yushchenko threatening to dissolve parliament and call a snap election.

The president has been a staunch supporter of his Georgian counterpart, Mikhail Saakashvili.

But Ms Tymoshenko has avoided outright condemnation of Russia, leading analysts to suggest she may be hoping for Moscow's backing in a possible bid for the presidency in 2010.

3 minutes Aljazeera coverage of the US ground attack in Pakistan at the begining of this 30 minute video of Middle Eastern news broadcasters.

Etheopia, Syria, Iran, Iraq etcetera are all in the video

Das Poster zeigt drei Soldaten, die einen Sarg tragen, darunter: »Schritt zur Abrüstung. Die Bundeswehr auf dem richtigen Weg. Wieder einer weniger.« Für ihn sei das »ein Schlag ins Gesicht unserer Soldaten, die ihr Leben für die Freiheit Deutschlands einsetzen«, ließ Jung aus Afghanistan via Bild verlauten. Der Wehrbeauftragte Reinhold Robbe (SPD) ereiferte sich über eine »menschenverachtende Geschmacklosigkeit«. Der Sturm der Entrüstung tobte exakt an dem Tag, an dem sich Jung bei Afghanistans Präsident Hamid Karsai dafür entschuldigte, daß Bundeswehrsoldaten zwei afghanische Kinder und eine Frau von hinten erschossen hatten – »versehentlich«, wie es hieß.

Verantwortlich für das Plakat sind die DFG-VK Berlin-Brandenburg und das Büro für antimilitaristische Maßnahmen (BamM). Das Bild ist seit fünf Jahren auf ihrer gemeinsamen Webseite (bamm.de) zugänglich. Seine plötzliche Prominenz verdankt es den Spürnasen von Neonazis, deren Sprachrohr, die Junge Freiheit, zu Wochenanfang darüber berichtete. Die Bild-Zeitung nahm den Ball auf und knüpfte Verbindungen zum hessischen Linksfraktionschef Willi van Ooyen, früher einmal DFG-VK-Geschäftsführer in seinem Bundesland. Der bedauerte jetzt den »respektlosen Umgang mit dem Leid von Menschen«.

Da Hessens Linke wegen des Posters aber nicht die Zusammenarbeit mit der DFG-VK aufkündigen will, durfte Roland Koch (CDU) geschäftsführender Regierungschef des Landes in Bild das Schreckgespenst einer von der Linken tolerierten SPD-Grünen-Minderheitsregierung auffrischen. Damit nicht genug: CDU-Generalsekretär Roland Pofalla präsentierte gestern Ulla Jelpke von der Bundestagsfraktion Die Linke als Mitschuldige, weil einer ihrer Mitarbeiter die »Haß-Seite im Internet« betreibe.

Der verteidigungspolitische Sprecher der Linksfraktion im Bundestag, Paul Schäfer, empörte sich gestern, mit dem Plakat werde »in zynischer und menschenverachtender Weise Genugtuung über den Tod von Bundeswehrsoldaten« geäußert. Ähnlich erbost meldeten sich DFG-VK-Bundessprecher Monty Schädel und Peter Strutynski vom Kasseler Friedenratschlag zu Wort.

Eine anonym bleiben wollende Sprecherin der Berliner DFG-VK zeigte sich im jW-Gespräch enttäuscht über das defensive Verhalten der Bundesspitze. »Damit hat man die Chance vertan, gegen die Brutalität und Würdelosigkeit des deutschen Militarismus zu punkten«.

endlich ein kriegseinsatz

ohne umweltverschmutzungen

- panzer fahren mit biorapsöl

-geschosshülsen sind biologisch abbaubar

-und tornados bekommen einen abgasfilter

wenn es wieder mal heisst

- die grünen müssen jetzt hart werden-

gibt es jetzt das biosiegel auf alle in deutschland hergestellten waffen

Andre kilder : Al Jazira:Hundreds of Afghans have staged a protest in the Shindand district in western Afghanistan after scores of people were reportedly killed in an raid by US-led forces.

The Afghan interior ministry has said that at least 76 civilians died in Thursday's attack, most of them women and children.

Hundreds of people shouted anti-US slogans at Afghan soldiers as they arrived in the Azizabad area of Shindand district to bring aid to the families of the victims, witnesses said on Saturday.

For the Liberals there has already been discussion of the "Green Shift", and the fact that they're being sued to stop using the term should be taken as an excellent opportunity to re-brand the plan that wasn't fully developed yet anyway and is already beginning to encounter resistance. Not that it will help much. What little I've read about it makes Harper's claim that it will 'hurt everyone' only a slight exaggeration.

It's hard to describe how poorly thought out the plan seems to be. I hope someone with more patience will have a go at it, but to summarize my thoughts: Dion wants to tax large carbon producers and then give that money to consumers. He's acknowledged that the producers can simply pass the cost of the tax onto consumers (what are the odds that will happen, eh?), but even if they don't, there's nothing Green about the idea at all. It'd be like taxing cocaine producers in Mexico, giving the profits to drug users here in Canada to help them with the rising cost of drugs then calling the program the "Clean & Sober Shift". It's about stabilizing the prices of our addiction so that we don't have to change our behaviour. Now, if the prices of energy are hurting you, and this plan actually works, then you may see some temporary relief. But this "plan" doesn't address the causes of high energy prices, so eventually, probably before the end of its four year implementation, you'll forget that your energy costs are subsidized.

I'll avoid saying more until I've read more about it, but it at first blush seems like a remarkable short-sighted and ill-thought out plan.

And what of that war in Afghanistan, will Canadians care about that? The NDP used to make a lot of noise about it, but Layton's been on holiday's or something because I haven't seen him making a fool of himself lately. It's a shame our election will happen before the Americans, because otherwise I think a Obama victory would greatly help the Conservatives with the war in Afghanistan. Obama has indicated he would shift resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, and Harper has said Canada would only stay if we had more support from our allies. I think a re-energized American forces would lend a badly needed bit of relief to the Canadian forces over there, as well as public support of them back home.

My take on Afghanistan is get out and get out now. I was supportive of going after Bin Laden, but sticking around to try and turn Afghanistan into anything other than a hellhole is just a bad, bad idea. The Soviets spent ten years there trying to bring the country under some semblance of control, and they failed miserably. It only weakened them internationally. I'm a big believer in Canada first, so I don't think we should be risking Canadian lives and resources for a long-shot-in-the-dark like Afghanistan. If Canada decides it really wants to help the Afghan people (though, why them and not Sudan, or China, or Americans who lack health care?... how to decide?) then bring the troops home and re-direct all funding for the war to an immigration and naturalization program. Several hundred million a year could provide food, housing and education for a lot of Aghan refugees. We'd probably end up doing a lot more good. We'd certainly be less likely to kill entire wedding parties including 60 children when they are mistaken for terrortist.

So there's the economy and the environment, maybe the war, but no hot-button issues ... no trivia so far. You know, the things that divide people harshly along party lines like abortion, the death penalty and gay marriage. Yet.

Ny al-Qaeda-video truer Danmark
Danmark bliver igen truet af al-Qaeda. Det sker i en ny video. ... Skriver politiken.dk.

Hvad var det, Quentin Peel fra Financial Times sagde?

»I danskere er rige og stolte, og så er I også lidt for tilfredse med jer selv. I tror, I har de rette svar«, sagde Peel og konkluderede:
»Danmark får faktisk rigtigt meget opmærksomhed for så lille et land. Og i betragtning af jeres størrelse, har I en meget høj profil«.

Jo, men kunne vi ikke nøjes med at vise Andreas bryster.

Bloggen kommenterer mere eller mindre satirisk aktuelle nyheder fra Politiken, Berlingske Tidende etc.
-> kig og klik på menuen under "nye indlæg", "nye kommentarer", "editor's picks" m.v.
-> eller se kronologisk liste (sammen med andre blogs) på da.wordpress.com/tag/danmark/.
-> Tilbage til nyeste indlæg

Websitet (klik på de øverste menupunkter -- under sider) handler især om Danmarks Radio & Co.

Og om hvordan statsradiofoniens arvtagere specielt ved deres valg og vinkling af nyheder
(Børn&Bananas, Danske Danskere, JanteFjante, Myter&Traditioner, TumpeTV, Varmvind&Lunluft)
er med til at gøde jorden for Fogh, Pia den fromme K. og andre mere eller mindre fordækte nationalister
samt Sand&Salighedsmonopolister med en mission om at Danmark skal frelse verden
-- og så også lige (med den anden hånd) knække The Axis of Evil.

DR&Co.s udanske dansktone sigter efter at producere konsensus om Danmarks og danske danskeres overlegenhed.
Sammen med det der trives i et sådant klima kan den meget vel være en medårsag til den senere tids voldsomme sammenstød (ReligionsRabalder, KulturKamp). Ikke kun på religiøse og etniske fronter, men også mellem kreative unge og etablerede magtstrukturer samt magthavere, som tror, de kan gå på vandet.

English abstract
This blog/site is about the connection between Danish media and nationalism, xenophobia and especially islamophobia in Denmark. As the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) said in its Third Report on Denmark:
...
Climate of opinion
...
104. ECRI notes with deep concern that, as indicated above, the climate in Denmark has worsened since its second report and that there is a pervasive atmosphere of intolerance and xenophobia against refugees, asylum seekers, as well as minority groups in general and Muslims in particular. The media, together with politicians play a major role in creating this atmosphere.

We are all Africans -- thanks to Mama Africa!

Blåtand, ej blåøjet

Le commandant taliban Farouki, dit s'en prendre aux humanitaires, pour en autre déstabiliser le pouvoir.

A suivre.

T.Beaulieu.

On September 4^th 2008, the Guardian published its editorial, "Power projection", on the building of Afghanistan's Kajaki dam which could provide vital energy from the hydroelectric plant, but highlights the point of security and how that continues to be an impediment to progress.

The Editor wrote:

... But in the immediate battle to establish security, and even in the long-term struggle to ease poverty and bring development, it was a glorious but dangerous folly. The Kajaki has been a 90-metre-high, rock-filled demonstration of foreign good intentions for decades but has never delivered the promised benefits to Afghanistan. It might do so one day, after the current brave struggle (and the lives of around 220 Afghan fighters over the last week). But only after immense effort and huge cost, sapping strength from other, smaller, better projects which might have brought relief now.

In reply and response to the Guardian's Editorial, the Rt Hon Des Browne MP, Defence Secretary, wrote: (Development work in Afghanistan cannot wait for complete security)

... We cannot afford to wait for complete security to be established before development begins. The need to combine the two is one of the challenges of Afghanistan, which both we and NGOs are grappling with to support the Afghan government.

... Finally, you are too cynical about American motives. US Aid is currently pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of aid into southern Afghanistan each year, on a wide range of projects including not just the Kajaki dam but also, for example, the agricultural park in Lashkar Gah, which could help restart Afghanistan's agricultural export industry. Helping this desperately poor country recover from decades of war and conflict will demand a great deal of money and effort from the whole international community, and the generosity of the American people, Congress and government should not be so lightly dismissed.

Writing in response:

DES BROWNE's response to the Guardian leader, dated September 4 2008, is welcome particularly in regards to project and development plans within Afghanistan. With 70,000 foreign troops now in the province, perhaps the minister will agree that there is not much more that can be done in terms of providing security. At some stage the important work of NGO's, delayed and deferred for too long now, has to be given the security go-ahead so as fundamental services can be provided. The 'balance' is however, still, a fine one.

Whilst the Defence Secretary speaks in terms of trying to improve the economic wellbeing of Afghanistan, what does the minister intend to do in protecting innocent civilians given the rapid re-emergence of the Taliban particularly within the southern part of the country to which he refers? I do come to the general conclusion, Mr. Browne, that your response is rather opportunistic in deflecting what was an excellent and accurate Guardian editorial.

...

US aid pours into countries to which it has vested foreign interests. The return the United States seeks from investing within Afghanistan is by envisaging a society, in the long-run, which is run more along the standards of the West. But, as the minister will surely know, here-in lies the real problem despite the best intentions of America and its heavy military presence in the country.

The strengthening position of the Taliban is, of course, alarming because, essentially, it is a resistance against the West from imposing any of its policies on a country that has witnessed ethnic tensions for centuries. It seeks to denigrate anything good the West may wish to do because it does not accept foreign occupation as being legitimate. Ultimately, this will always have a bearing on the psychology of governments of what they can and cannot do.

Calculated risks in undertaking building programmes such as the Dam project is, in my view, honourable, although that should never disguise the continued frustrations of those who seek to build a better Afghanistan, particularly when peoples lives are at risk.

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

- Copyright is the currency by which information can be exchanged in certain instances. You should seek independent legal advice if you are unsure of your rights. 

by Arthur MacMillan

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan's presidential hopefuls began a final push for support Friday on the eve of an election that slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto's widower is expected to win.

 
In this picture released by Pakistan People's Party, ruling party leader Asif Ali Zardari, above, speaks during a party's central executive meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan in this Friday, Aug. 22, 2008 file photo. Asif Ali Zardari, head of the ruling Pakistan People's Party and widower of two-time Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, will face off against two lightly regarded opponents when legislators meet Saturday to choose a president.(AP Photo/Pakistan People's Party/HO, FILE)

Asif Ali Zardari is the frontrunner in a three-way race to take power in a country riven by Islamic militancy and economic turmoil.

Security will be raised on election day, officials have told AFP, and Zardari has already moved house due to fears of attempts being made on his life, just nine months after Bhutto was killed at a campaign rally.

Tensions have risen further after a failed assassination attempt on Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who was not in his car when it was hit by sniper fire on Wednesday.

Zardari will face a multitude of problems if he wins a secret ballot among lawmakers and takes charge of a nuclear-armed state where bombings and suicide attacks have killed nearly 1,200 people in the past year.

Pakistan's economy is backsliding with inflation rampant and a volatile political situation contributing to a 40 percent fall on the stock market since January, in a country already reliant on foreign aid.

The unrest that has struck the nation has been attributed to militants angry at former president Pervez Musharraf's support for the United States and its "war on terror".

Musharraf's resignation triggered Saturday's election but his military policy is likely to continue with Zardari.

The 52-year-old presidential hopeful has said that Pakistan will continue to back the US in its efforts to defeat terrorism if he is elected.

"I will work to defeat the domestic Taliban insurgency and to ensure that Pakistani territory is not used to launch terrorist attacks on our neighbours or on NATO forces in Afghanistan," he said in a Washington Post article.

"We stand with the United States, Britain, Spain and others who have been attacked."

Islamabad is heavily dependent on the billions of dollars that have headed here since Musharraf backed the US after the September 11 attacks in 2001, and in its subsequent invasion of Afghanistan.

As co-chairman of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), Zardari already heads a fragile coalition government which, although still in office, recently lost the backing of two-time former premier Nawaz Sharif's party.

A PPP aide told AFP that Zardari would Friday meet parliamentarians and his own party officials to finalise strategy for election day.

"Inshallah (God willing) he will win and secure 500 of the 700 votes of the electoral college," the aide said, referring to the Senate, National Assembly and four provincial assemblies that will choose Pakistan's president.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080905/wl_sthasia_
afp/pakistanvote_080905050316

It appears the military will be keeping fifteen brigades of troops in Iraq for the duration of this year. Afghanistan is fast becoming a much more dangerous place and I do hope the violence can be contained there until we resolve the Iraq situation and additional support can reach those currently fighting to bring peace and stability to that region of the world. It is sad that the Canadian death toll in Afghanistan is approaching one hundred soldiers.  Canada had been a solid ally and of great assistance, as always, in contributing to the establishment of a  safer and more stable Afghanistan.  Our thanks and condolences to the families of the three most recent fatalities in the region.

Back here in little Erie,PA~ Brandy ,the abandoned pup, gets spayed thanks to the generous vets at Erie Animal Hospital and her sponsors.  If a home is not found for her by this weekend, she is scheduled to be accepted to the A.N.N.A shelter here in Erie as soon as they have an opening.  We will all miss her in our neighborhood.  Speaking of the neighborhood, we're going to have a get-together to explore forming a watch group and just to familiarize everyone with each other. Papa Joe's Pepperoni Cafe has graciously offered to serve as the host for the meeting in a couple of weeks and hopefully some city officials will be in attendance to offer guidance and insight into what's involved in neighborhood watch and other available programs for the area.  The meeting invitation is being extended to all residents, property owners and managers of rental properties, and anyone interested in attending who lives around the four and five hundred blocks of West 8th and West 7th Sts.  The tentative date is September 17th at 6:30 pm.  Just having people show an interest in meeting one another and looking out for each other is encouraging.  If we do not end up establishing a formal group that will be all right too.  Whatever will be, will be.

Gridley Park's litter problem has returned,  but not as bad, with the start of the school year. I suppose that's to be expected. And the graffitti is still in all the same places as well.  The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Just had to post a photo of my puppy, Cricket as she just walked in the room carrying a light fixure complete with light bulb!!! I haven't a clue where she got it-well, actually I think she ventured in to one of the "Off Limit Restricted Areas" of the basement aka the Fix-It Room and did a bit of exploring on her own! So now, after checking to make sure the fix-it room is secured and she cannot retrieve anything more of a similar ilk, I'm back to the matters at hand. She has been an absolute joy in my life.  She increases my bliss each and every day.  She's an imp and full of playfulness and reminds me that Life is Joy. As the late great Charles Schulz said, "Happiness is a Warm Puppy."

Now, I'm having a senior moment and cannot think of any of the other things I wanted to blog about so I shall call this one Fini!

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

ST. PAUL (Reuters) - Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin kicked off a two-month battle for the White House on Friday with a promise that "change is coming," a theme co-opted from their Democratic rivals.

McCain touted his credentials as a reformer and portrayed himself as the real agent of change in the race against Barack Obama as he accepted his party's presidential nomination in an arena filled with supporters waving blue "Country First" signs.

"I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you," McCain said in a speech that included only passing criticisms of Obama after a four-day convention marked by scathing attacks on the Democrat.

"I've fought corruption, and it didn't matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans," McCain said as Palin, his new running mate, watched from the stands.

The reception for McCain's remarks was more muted than for Palin's fiery acceptance speech on Wednesday, which directed repeated barbs at Obama and drew roars from the crowd, energizing the party's conservative base.

McCain trails Obama slightly in most national opinion polls as they head into the November 4 presidential election, but he promised the Republican faithful he would win.

"And after we've won, we're going to reach out our hand to any willing patriot, make this government start working for you again, and get this country back on the road to prosperity and peace," McCain said.

McCain and Palin joined their families on stage after the speech as balloons and confetti drifted over the arena.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080905/
pl_nm/usa_politics_friday_dc_1

By LOLITA C. BALDOR and ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Writers 

WASHINGTON - President Bush's top defense advisers have recommended he maintain 15 combat brigades in Iraq until the end of the year contrary to expectations that the improved security in Iraq would allow for quicker cuts, The Associated Press has learned.

Military leaders told the AP that the closely held plan would send a small Marine contingent to Afghanistan in November to replace one of two Marine units expected to head home then.

 
A U.S. Army soldier stands guard, during a joint Iraqi police and U.S. military operation searching for wanted suspects from the Mahdi Army militia, in the Fudailya area next to Sadr City, in Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, Aug. 29, 2008.(AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

If Bush follows the recommendations, he would delay any additional buildup in Afghanistan until early next year, when another brigade would be deployed there instead of to Iraq.

That move would cut the number of brigades in Iraq to 14 in February.

The plan is aimed at taking advantage of security gains in Iraq to bolster the military effort in Afghanistan, where violence is on the rise. Several senior military and defense officials described the recommendations on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.

They also acknowledged the plan is a compromise since Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, argued to maintain the current force levels in Iraq — about 146,000 troops, including 15 combat brigades and thousands of support forces — through June.

Bush is weighing the recommendations; in the past, he has largely accepted the military's advice. If he adopts them, it would be left to the next president to execute further troop reductions in Iraq and a greater buildup in Afghanistan. Bush's term ends in January.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has advocated pulling all U.S. combat forces out of Iraqi within 16 months of taking office. GOP nominee John McCain has said he would rely on the advice of U.S. military commanders to determine the timing and pace of troop reductions. Both candidates have said more troops are needed in Afghanistan.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_
on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq;_ylt=ApLPr2nD
TVInMO8KmJbxIQys0NUE

The Times of London smells a rat in regard to the timing of the recent convoy battle:

[British commanders] understood that the plan was fraught with political and military problems at the highest levels. The knowledge left many Nato commanders wondering whether the lives of their men were being risked for the sake of little more than American political expediency.

UPDATE: The British defence minister responds:

We cannot afford to wait for complete security to be established before development begins. The need to combine the two is one of the challenges of Afghanistan, which both we and NGOs are grappling with to support the Afghan government.