Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Truckee , CA
|
|
Here's the new power combo, if the US doesn't get it's debt in order:
Good!
Let the Muslim world be pissed at China for a while.
EDIT
I know where Jeff will be moving.....
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Truckee , CA
|
|
In 1993, there was an official exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Arafat, in which Arafat declared that "the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid."In 2009 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert demanded the Palestinian Authority's acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which the Palestinian Authority rejected. The Knesset plenum gave initial approval in May 2009 to a bill criminalising the public denial of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, with a penalty of up to a year in prison.
According to the linguist Noam Chomsky, the term "right to exist" is unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right....In an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody’s going to accept....[ Palestinians are] not going to accept...the legitimacy of their dispossession." John V. Whitbeck argued that Israel's insistence on a right to exist forces Palestinians to provide a moral justification for their own suffering.
I'm beginning to further understand why Israel is sooooooo hated by anyone who actually thinks.
Continual legislation by various nations to criminalize the criticism of the state of Israel and Israels continual stonewalling of peace efforts. Fricking thought police.
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Truckee , CA
|
|
Actually, Jeff, I hold Nazi's in as much contempt as Zionists.
Their goals are one in the same.
At worst they both want an ethnically clean "Homeland" and at best those that are not MOTT would be relegated to second, third or even lower class citizenry.
Any way all you'd have to do is put on some steel-toed Doc. Martens and a wife-beater and you'd look like the poster boy for the Aryan nation.
Heck you have acted like a member of the Aryan nation, abusing your power by torturing someone saying it is for the good of the community but in reality you were going against the very principals you were charged with upholding.
Ironic isn't it.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Jun 10, 2011 - 08:22pm PT
|
Doug to Jeff - F*#k you! Don't be a dickhead. If a point is to be had, and you can't say it but resort to a personal attack: then you are just a dumb prick. You may actually have a good point to make. Say it in full, without the personal attacks and with links and supporting information so we can all discuss it and either learn or refute your statements like adults.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Jun 10, 2011 - 08:46pm PT
|
a real "career"
ONE DOLLAR a year, little "deputy".
Posts his little "certificate" like a child bringing home a report card to mommy.
What a dumb wanker
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 12:22pm PT
|
Today's LA Times:
Staying the course in Afghanistan
By Max Boot
June 22, 2011
President Obama is due to announce Wednesday the size of the withdrawal from Afghanistan following a bruising internal debate within the administration. Proponents of a fast, immediate drawdown have been making essentially two arguments, neither especially compelling.
There is the fiscal argument: We can't afford the cost of the war effort. It's true that we are facing a budget crunch, but the savings from a large withdrawal now would be negligible.
The debate in the administration has been over how fast to bring home 30,000 "surge" troops out of a total force of 100,000. Even if all 30,000 were withdrawn tomorrow — which has not been on the table — we would save only a small portion of the $107 billion the war is set to cost next year, and that would have no appreciable impact on a $3.7-trillion federal budget or the $14.3-trillion debt.
The strategic argument for a fast drawdown is premised on the claim that Al Qaeda is already crippled and therefore we have nothing to fear by pulling 10,000 or more troops out of Afghanistan this summer, another 10,000 early next year and 10,000 more by the end of 2012. If White House leaks are to be believed, some senior administration officials concluded that the counterinsurgency campaign launched only last year is a waste of time; all we need to do is rely on targeted air and commando strikes of the kind that have devastated Al Qaeda's senior leadership in Pakistan.
What that argument misses is the extent to which our presence in Afghanistan enables us to project power into Pakistan. It was from Afghanistan, after all, that the Navy SEALs took off to kill Osama bin Laden. If we pull back in Afghanistan, the Taliban will gain ground and the willingness of the Afghan government to provide us the bases we need will decline. That, in turn, will make it markedly more difficult to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and prevent it from regenerating itself as it has in the past.
Moreover, we shouldn't get overly fixated on Al Qaeda. Admittedly it is the terrorist group that has had the most success in targeting the American homeland. But it is hardly the only threat to the U.S. and our interests. It would be a catastrophe if we were to pull out prematurely from Afghanistan and allow groups like the Haqqani network and the Taliban — both closely linked to Al Qaeda — to come to power. That would not only allow Afghanistan to once again become a base for terrorists but would also endanger the already fragile situation in Pakistan.
The administration can argue that even after we pull out all of the surge forces, we would have 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, considerably more than were there when President George W. Bush left office. But that is scant comfort because in 2009, the Taliban was on the verge of taking over southern Afghanistan. The surge has allowed coalition commanders to roll back Taliban gains in Kandahar and Helmand provinces. But the current progress is tentative and uncertain. Pull out a substantial number of our forces now and the success of the entire war effort is thrown into jeopardy.
Counterinsurgency is a manpower-intensive exercise. We barely have enough troops in Afghanistan to carry out the plan devised by Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and revised by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. With a significant drawdown, it will become impossible to secure the civilian population, even in the south much less in the east, which is the next vital area of operations. The Taliban can then infiltrate back into onetime strongholds from which it has only recently been ejected.
Psychology is also important: Most Afghans, like people anywhere caught in a civil war, are fence sitters. They are trying to divine who will win before they decide which side it is safe to support. With the surge and the resulting counterinsurgency campaign, the coalition has grabbed crucial momentum. If Obama orders deep troop drawdowns, it will be taken as a sign by Afghans that we are not serious about winning the war. That, in turn, will make it much harder for our remaining troops to win cooperation from scared civilians and will make it correspondingly easier for the Taliban to recover lost ground.
It is hard to see why the president would be willing to take actions now that would jeopardize the success of one of his signature policies: the war effort in Afghanistan. If he keeps our surge forces intact, and if things go badly anyway, he will to some extent be absolved of blame because he can claim to have followed the best military advice available. But if he disregards the advice to limit the drawdown this year and next, and if things then go badly (as they easily could), the resulting fiasco will be entirely on his shoulders.
Whether from a political or a strategic standpoint, the smart course now is to continue to give the surge time to work. Anything else is shortsighted advice that is likely to come back to haunt the president.
Max Boot is a contributing editor to Opinion and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 01:11pm PT
|
There is no 'winning' in Afghanistan. We control essentially nothing outside of Kabul and our base perimeters. We could stay there for the next twenty years and that will still be the situation on the ground the very next day.
You want to 'win'? Bump up our troop strength there to 600k, seal the border with Pakistan, and do counterinsurgency work for the next ten years providing real, solid infrastructure improvements. That would give you a shot at a 'win', but at the expense of our own schools and infrastructure - i.e. not much of win outside of for defense contractors.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 01:28pm PT
|
AS I said, there is no winning in Afghanistan.
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Truckee , CA
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 02:28pm PT
|
There is another way to win. Bomb any village hosting combatants, in Afghan or Pakistan, kill many combatants, women, children, make life so horrible that they surrender.
Well, Jeff, when you and your loved ones are taken out by a bomb instigated by revenge, I won't shed a tear.
What is that old quote that comes from the "holy book" of "your tribe" Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 04:55pm PT
|
I just read that this was done in 1096 during the first Crusade by the Muslims, got the Catholics to retreat.
The Muslims - on the other hand, have an even longer litany of Euro-trash transgressions on civilians in their own homes as well. In fact to this day, calling someone a "Crusader" is a term reserved for only for people from the west whom they would equate with the lowest, rudest, meanest and foulest of pig sh#t.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Jun 22, 2011 - 07:23pm PT
|
Very true, the Christians were very ruthless as well. The first massacre of civilians was that of Jews in the city of Worms, Germany.
Oi vey! that list of atrocities when fleshed out for a few centuries could be very well be another very full thread.
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
Jun 23, 2011 - 08:02pm PT
|
While Netanyahu and his buddies checked out the new underground nuclear shelter today dubbed the “Nation’s Tunnel” by local media., Wednesday’s exercise, “Turning Point 5″, which envisaged heavy shelling and thousands of dead and wounded on several Israeli fronts.
JERUSALEM (Reuters)
The rich Israelis do not trust their own government to protect them and have built their own for last couple of years, while the other 2/3 of Israeli population do not have any.
Fatty you have to remember that the Israeli strike would have to hit Iran in 15 different locations and not just one. And they do not know where the other 14 are so they have to guess.
What was the movie that kid said “I see dead people”?
A lot of dead people. Those that are lucky and eventually come out of their shelters [one month] how many Israelis will be left? A couple of hundred maybe a thousand max. Oh? How would that trading agreement with the Chinese go and the economic recovery take place? Guess that this question would have to be answered in the election debates with your fellow Republicans. Where is money coming from to help out?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Jun 23, 2011 - 08:24pm PT
|
Three Russian designers of Iran's nuclear plant die in plane crash
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 23, 2011, 12:00 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Iran nuclear Russia Bushehr Stuxnet
Three Russian scients who built Bushehr
The three Russian nuclear scientists who planned, designed, built and put into operation Iran's first nuclear reactor at Bushehr this year, died Tuesday night, June 20, when a Rusaero flight from Moscow to Petrozavodsk in northwest Russia crashed.
debkafile's sources reveal that they were among the 44 passengers who were killed.
Their loss is a severe blow to Russia's atomic reactor industry as well as its nuclear program as a whole, since the three, Sergey Ryzhov, Gennady Banuyk and Nikolay Trunov, specialized in running installations in tandem and synchronizing various systems.
The Russian company OKB Gidropress, Moscow, which employed them as chief planners of nuclear plants, is proud of having sold reactors to five countries including Iran.
The authorities have ordered an investigation to find out why all three senior nuclear scientists were aboard the same airliner in violation of Russian security regulations which prohibit more than one high-ranking politician, military figure or executive of a sensitive industry taking the same flight.
The cause of the Tu-134's crash is also being probed - although it has a notoriously high accident rate and should not have been used by the three scientists. The eight passengers who survived, who are in critical condition, are to be quizzed to find out what happened aboard the plane before it crashed.
The first assumption was that the disaster occurred due to human error. The three pilots missed the runway while landing at Petrozavodsk's Nikolay Trunov airport because of heavy fog. It caught fire next to a highway.
This was the worst Russian aviation disaster since April 10, 2010, when a plane carrying the Polish president, his wife and many other Polish dignitaries crashed in similar circumstances near the city of Smolensk killing 97 people.
Our sources report that Iran chose to buy its first reactor from OKB Gidropress because the Russian firm bills itself as designers, builders, planners and operators of nuclear plants, specializing in adapting them to existing nuclear systems. For Tehran this capability was critical because the Bushehr reactor is composed of systems made in different countries, particularly Germany, and experts were needed for synchronizing them into a smoothly functioning plant.
debkafile's intelligence sources quote Iranian and Western intelligence officials as offering the opinion that the Bushehr reactor's mixed components made it vulnerable to the Stuxnet malworm's invasion of its control system two years ago. The three Russian scientists spent February and March 2011 at Bushehr after the Russian Nuclear Energy Commission insisted that the nuclear fuel rods be removed until they were sure the plant would not explode. The rods have since been reloaded and the reactor went online last month.
Wednesday, June 22, the OKB Gidropress Company Web site ran a black-bordered obituary mourning the deaths of Sergey Ryzhov, 52, Director General designer at OKB Gidropress, Gennady Banuyk, 65, Deputy Director and Chief Designer and Nikolay Trunov, 52, Chief Designer-Head of Division.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:43pm PT
|
No so TGT, we do these kinds of official backdoor "leaks" for reasons all the time. Quoted below.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING
U.S. Air Force advised to conduct simulations
for strike against nuclear Iran
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has been urged to prepare for war with Iran.
The Rand Corp. asserted that the Air Force must increase exercises and testing of weapons as part of preparations for any order to attack Iran. In a report for the Air Force, Rand warned that the prospect of a U.S. air strike could turn real once Iran was deemed to have assembled a nuclear weapons arsenal.
"Timelines for military tasks will depend on what happens in Iran's nuclear program," the report, titled "Iran's Nuclear Future: Critical U.S. Policy Choices prepared for the U.S. Air Force," said.
The report urged such U.S. preparations as exercises and war simulations. Rand said the Air Force should train to fight under nuclear threat as well as targeting Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, responsible for strategic weapons programs.
"Design exercises and war games to support different policy choices," Rand said. "Exercise objectives for bombers could aim not only to demonstrate to Iran that investment in nuclear capabilities could possibly be destroyed but also to influence the internal Iranian debate over nuclear weaponization."
The simulations would be based on the escalation of conflict between Iran and the United States. Rand said the wargames would test the air force's ability to deter Iran with and without U.S. nuclear weapons.
"Provide ways to manage escalation in conflict with Iran," the report said. "Investigate concepts of operations to manage escalation in U.S.-Iran conflict, e.g., reinforce political communication that signals limited U.S. objectives; focus on immediate threat by directly targeting Iran's regime-supporting paramilitary forces; and withhold targeting of Iran's political leadership."
Rand said Iran could be expected to act rationally and would demonstrate caution in any conflict with the United States. The report said Teheran, despite its anti-Israel rhetoric, regards Washington as the chief threat and could resist U.S. military pressure.
"The Iranian government is aware of the United States' overwhelming nuclear capability, including the U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles and sea-launched ballistic missiles," the report said. Greater psychological effect on Iranian political and military decisionmakers could possibly be achieved by U.S. movements and exercises of its nuclear-capable bombers and dual-capable fighter aircraft in the region to signal to Iran the potential costs of nuclear weaponization."
The U.S. military was expected to face Iran's conventional forces as well as IRGC. The report envisioned such Iranian responses as massive missile strikes on Gulf Cooperation Council states and Israel as well as blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the passage for 30 percent of crude oil exports.
"In addition, more advanced missiles, such as the Shihab-3 and Sejil, may provide it with the opportunity to target parts of Europe and Russia," the report said.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 03:16pm PT
|
Can't wait - a fouth credit card war! Whoopee! How come you never hear Republicans talk about fully-funded, cash-on-the-warhead wars?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|