kuxnk53m1mp http://www.1062900.com/387935.html 72geh0ce

The problem w/Obama's comment is that it undermines a difficult allie w/nuclear weapons that is struggling to keep power. He has enough anti-USA pressure as it is and statements like this don't give him great incentive to stay on our side. If he loses power, his replacement will likely not be as friendly.

Romney/Clinton/Guiliani might do exactly what Obama said under those hypothetical circumstances, but the decision would be made quietly--not in a press conference or national interview. Creating hypotheticals about taking such drastic action is irresponsible and dangerous. Hypotheticals of this nature should be left to people who don't make policy (Rush, Washington Post, Times, etc.).

Walk quietly and carry a big stick. A good philosophy that is not employed enough.

what does it matter what any of those people says? are any of them talking about real policies to address real issues? of course not. it's all about getting off a zinger or two, who makes a gaffe, how much $$$ they were able to raise last quarter... you get the picture. there is nothing the least bit informative or enlightening going on in politics. considering the stakes, you might expect some real fireworks. but really, for all the over-hyped partisan "differences" among them, the differences between the candidates and the parties is negligible. come right down to it, and this is a marathon popularity contest, to be mostly decided on the basis of entertainment value.

But ultimately, he says, "only Muslims themselves can defeat the violent radicals."

Romney, like Obama who spoke in another context, has demonstrated his own naivete. He draws a reasonable conclusion, however, why does he presuppose that (unspecified) Muslims, would want to defeat the so-called violent radicals in the first place?

Many Muslims view Romney's radicals as freedom fighters and heroes, men and women who are pitted against an oppressive foreign government who are allied with Muslim traitors.

Romney?-One of the "pathetic bunch of pygmies". He will say anything, anywhere, anytime, as long as it what you want to hear!

It was the "high level intelligence officer's" working under Rummy and Cheney that erroneously or intentionally stated there were WMDs in Iraq and a 911 connection. I'd take one enlisted like Bill Arkin for ten "high level intelligence officer's" that were working under Rummy and Cheney and day.

Posted by: Johnnie

"At it again old Bill...I guess we'll just have to rely on your enlisted man's expertise. Didn't go to a name school, didn't become a high level intelligence officer in your illustrious military career, did you? Now you want intelligent people to trust you. How come you never ,ever mention your rank? Something to hide? Maybe you were an "Officer" in the Greenpeace navy...

I think that you owe it to your Socialist Left folks the real history of Bill Arkin "

Johnnie,
Its cowards like you that have us in Iraq. Enlisted are good enough to die for you but not worth much more huh? I know lots of people who have had very successful military careers without becoming a "high level intelligence officer." LTC Ralph Peters, one of the best strategic thinkers the Army has produced in years, is an example. So what were you Johnnie? One of those nutcase officers we enlisted pukes called "zeroes?" The best thing the "zeroes" could do for the service and the coountry would be to join the enemy. This may come as a shock to you but many of the enlisted pukes you like to put down are better educated than the officers who supposedly lead them.

You say Romney is all symbol and no action?

When he beats Hillary in the general election He will have at least 4 years to show you action!

Then why hasn't he been nailed when we know to within a few hundred miles of where he is? It is the blind faith following of this administration by some individuals who refuse to think independently that let us be led into the Iraq Fiasco, they are the mindless drones of PNAC.

DC writes:"From all released intelligence he has no influence over any terrorist movements and remains just a figurehead and not a true threat. In essence if this administration wanted to kill or capture OBL, it would have happened by now, but he's far to much of a political gold mine to do that."

-thats ridiculous, if OBL got nailed , it would be heralded as a major triumph for the administration, a vindication of there course of action. It would prove also that Iraq has not distracted us from the cause of 9/11. This "conspiracy", "hidden agenda" type of thinking without any proof is common left wing paranoia

Posted by: alex

There is a fundamentalism of another kind which is the real problem. It is well articulated by proponents of PNAC (Project of New American Century). As opposed to Muslim fundamentalist, PNAC fundamentalists have quite an array of weapons, including an impressive quantity of Nukes, at their disposal. Well, technically not at their disposal, but they have enough influence over current president as well as presidential candidates and law makers to convince them that using a nuclear weapon would be a right thing to do. They claim that American leadership (read hegemony) of the world is the right thing for the world and we should use our military against anyone who opposes it. So, according to this philosophy, even if a tiny tribe in Pakistan or Afghanistan refuses to submit to US hegemony we should have every right to blast them. To achieve this hegemony they do not want us to distinguish between innocent and guilty, just rejecting American hegemony is a crime enough. According to this 'religion' no one other than USA has the right to sovereignty and teaching little guys a lesson will encourage big guys to accept our leadership. Most American people reject such philosophy, so the followers of PNAC 'religion' have invented a bugaboo called AlQaida, to keep people under constant fear. They want us to think that we are in grave danger unless we support our government's effort to rule the world. They have over-hyped the few AQ guys hiding in the caves so much that many people, including our presidential candidates, think that blowing up the entire area with Nukes would be the right thing to do.

The shrill psyops attack on Pakistan is the result of Musharraf telling Cheney to F..off in March when Cheney flew to Pakistan to demand that they join the Israeli and American neocon attack on Iran. Cheney gave Musharraf the usual zionist bluff, "Us of chaos", the bluff was called and Osama was rolled out to torment Musharraf at the Mosque seige etc.
The dark totalitarian agenda of the neocons
is forcing the planet into a dark age of war, these PNAC barbarians are an existential threat to humanity.

DC writes:"From all released intelligence he has no influence over any terrorist movements and remains just a figurehead and not a true threat. In essence if this administration wanted to kill or capture OBL, it would have happened by now, but he's far to much of a political gold mine to do that."

-thats ridiculous, if OBL got nailed , it would be heralded as a major triumph for the administration, a vindication of there course of action. It would prove also that Iraq has not distracted us from the cause of 9/11. This "conspiracy", "hidden agenda" type of thinking without any proof is common left wing paranoia

OBL was has been effectively neutralized since his escape from Tora Bora. At which point he became a secondary military target and political bonanza for the conservatives. As long as he's free conservatives will use his freedom to war monger. From all released intelligence he has no influence over any terrorist movements and remains just a figurehead and not a true threat. In essence if this administration wanted to kill or capture OBL, it would have happened by now, but he's far to much of a political gold mine to do that.

Posted by: Dao

"Which one of the Republican candidates would go on record saying even if they know where Bin Laden is in Pakistan they won't act w/o Musharraf's approval?"

Dear Mr. Arkin,

Arkin writes:

"He's happy to position himself in the middle of nowhere."

Your description of Mitt Romney is very reminiscent of the song lyrics to "Nowhere Man" by John Lennon. Perhaps this can be his campaign song? And video?

Lennon)
Recorded: October 21-22, 1965, Abbey Road

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRv34Cat3Vw&mode=related&search=

"He's a real nowhere Man,
sitting in his Nowhere Land,
making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Doesn't have a point of view,
knows not where he's going to,
isn't he a bit like you and me?
Nowhere Man, please listen,
you don't know what you're missing,
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command.

He's as blind as he can be,
just sees what he wants to see,
Nowhere Man can you see me at all?
Nowhere Man, don't worry,
take your time, don't hurry,
Leave it all till somebody else
lend you a hand.
Doesn't have a point of view,
knows not where he's going to,
isn't he a bit like you and me?
Nowhere Man, please listen,
you don't know what you're missing,
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command.

He's a real Nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody."

If you believe general Musharraf is the friend who will deliver help capture Osama, I want to sell you golden gate bridge or statue of liberty (take your pick). Look at the history of cooperation Pakistan has provided. Whenever thing become too hot to handle for Musharraf, miraculously he provides some terrorist to calm it down. We have never received whole hearted cooperation from Pakistan. While, in power he has strengthened the hands of fundamentalist, allowed Al Quida to regroup. We should be able to take out the threat ourselves.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaiminfo.com
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Geopolitical concerns behind United Nations intervention in Darfur

By Chris Talbot
7 August 2007

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously agreed on a resolution to send a joint UN-African Union (AU) force to the Darfur region of Sudan. Proposed as the world's largest peacekeeping force, there will be 20,000 troops that will incorporate the present 7,000 AU force already in Darfur plus 6,000 police. It will be deployed under Chapter 7 of the UN's Charter empowering it to use military force to protect civilians and aid workers. The first troops are due to be sent in October, but full deployment will probably take much longer.

Most of the efforts in pushing through the resolution appear to have come from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who have both used the Darfur issue since taking office to boost their humanitarian credentials. It has also enabled them to assure President George Bush of their support. Speaking at the UN after the resolution was passed, Brown personally thanked Bush "for his leadership on Darfur."

There is certainly a worsening humanitarian disaster in Darfur--a recent UN report stated that more than half a million people out of a total of 4.2 million affected were cut off from humanitarian aid. But the driving force behind the proposed intervention is the interest of the United States and the Western powers in taking more control over this strategic region and its oil wealth.

It is intended that most of the troops in the peacekeeping force will be African, but there will be a single UN chain of command giving Western governments control over operations. The current AU force has suffered from lack of funding by the West and has remained small and ineffective because it was not under their direct control.

France has already volunteered to send troops. The conflict in Darfur has spread into neighbouring Chad and the Central African Republic, where France has troops in place already and is supporting unpopular regimes against rebel forces (see "The new Sarkozy government hosts conference on Darfur").

Britain and France, with the agreement of Washington, dropped a demand for "further measures" against the Sudanese government and rebel forces for failing to cooperate. According to diplomats, a more "conciliatory text" was adopted to make sure that China did not veto the resolution in the Security Council and that African countries were kept onside. China buys most of Sudan's oil exports and supplies it with arms, and has previously opposed US and British proposals directed at the Sudan regime. China has now supported the UN intervention, apparently concerned that the 2008 Beijing Olympics would be targeted by protesters.

Pressure from organisations such as the Save Darfur Coalition--with widespread support in the US--has played a role in getting China to agree to a peacekeeping force. They involve thousands of young people genuinely moved by the plight of the suffering refugees in Darfur. However, the simplistic view put forward by the campaign's organisers that the problem is merely one of the Khartoum regime backing Arab Janjaweed militias against the rest of the population has served to distract attention from the fundamental issue and has been used to legitimise a military intervention by the major powers.

Darfur is just one tragic outcome of the imperialist domination of the African continent. It is also naïve in the extreme to imagine that the Bush administration, responsible for war crimes in Iraq, could be persuaded to carry out humanitarian measures in Sudan.

The Sudanese regime--and countless other oppressive regimes in developing countries that are not at present singled out for US disapproval--thrives under an imperialist system that has seen billions of dollars in debt relief exported to Western banks under International Monetary Fund auspices and huge profits made from mineral extraction by multinational corporations, but with the vast majority of the population forced to live in abject poverty. Whatever anti-Western rhetoric is used for popular consumption, a vital role is played by such brutal governments as that in Khartoum in maintaining the status quo.

Whilst the Bush administration has applied sanctions to the Sudanese regime and publicised the use of the term "genocide" in relation to Darfur, it has combined this pressure with tacit support for the regime, using its intelligence service for a source of information and even covert operations (see "CIA uses Sudanese intelligence in Iraq").

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/darf-a07.shtml

William Arkin---We the People defend your fight against Fascism, demagoguery, and downright lying by the Fascist's. Go get em with everything in your arsenal. Call the Old Crows--they probably will be more than willing to help.

These people do not have a clue. Republican or Democrat, I have never seen such a collection of losers running for President. Al-Qaida does not represent mainstream Islamic beliefs, and their violence creates enemies within the Islamic world. While al-Qaida will be a problem for some time, there will be no Caliphate.

Some funny comments here. One might ask Mitt how he dodged the draft; one might ask if our military minds are so well educated and brilliant how we ended up in this mess; one might ask what president said "bring em on" and "dead or alive; Oopps, sorry forgot that conservatives are always right, never wrong and do not respond well to criticism...

jim oneill
E-5, 1967-69

Come now! All the criticism of Obama about hitting Al Qaeda in Pakistan. This is what he said according to Arkin:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Which one of the Republican candidates would go on record saying even if they know where Bin Laden is in Pakistan they won't act w/o Musharraf's approval? The facts are Musharraf has delivered many of the top terrorists after 9/11. It's also true he has allowed Al Qaeda full range to regroup in a large part of his country. And that's the crazy thing in this whole mess. We don't know for sure who our friends or enemies really are in Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the whole region. Next year in Iraq we may end up allying with the Sunnis, you know the old Baathists, against the Shiites we help put in power if we decide they will side with Iran in a show down with Teheran. Who knows?

Any president who needs another foreign leader's approval or fails to go after Bin Laden or his top aids does not deserve the office. Of course it would help to get Musharraf to cooperate. But to depend on other people to get Bin Laden for us like we did in Afghanistan is not only foolish but down right a dereliction of duty.

Mr. Atkin, were you as critical of the pre-election Demos who proffered no solutions to the Iraq War other than the "we will change the way the war has been conducted and bring the troops home" (symbol over action) rhetoric? They got elected anyway on "style over substance".

Consequently, they now own the lowest approval rating in Amercian history. Why should any candidate be required to outline in detail any platform when all that is needed is propaganda and lip service promises?

You want to go trolling for symbol over action, start within your own party and clean up your own mess rather than go looking for someone else's.

Seems like people are failing to grasp how crazy Obama's position is. Pakistan is a nuclear power! And an ally! And trying hard to fight the bad guys! And Obama wants to attack within their borders, without their permission. Are you serious???

Romney DID say that he would leave the option open. Apparently you weren't listening. Giuliani said the same thing and both of them agreed that they wouldn't be idiotic enough to discuss it openly on national television prior to becoming the president of the United States.

You're right Bill, Mitt did have the best zinger of the debate which came from Obama's arresting lack of foreign policy wisdom. Oh, and Mitt's quick wit didn't hurt none either...

Ya I know Bill, I'm outraged like you. In the whole 15 seconds Romney was given to respond he didn't even give us the 30 page thesis on the details of military micro-economics you wanted. I was hoping for a prepared statement on the complete purchasing report of canteens and military toothbrushes. He can't be president. Not with that lack of attention to detail. No sir-ree.

The Elephant in the room that none of the liberal media donkeys are talking about is the enormous Obama gaff. He can't even broadly get it right philosophically - why bother with the details?

Bill,

You missed the point altogether. Obama should have been presidential enough to have never said what he said openly. You can't do that and be presidential.
I think Mitt hit a home run on that one.

At it again old Bill...I guess we'll just have to rely on your enlisted man's expertise. Didn't go to a name school, didn't become a high level intelligence officer in your illustrious military career, did you? Now you want intelligent people to trust you. How come you never ,ever mention your rank? Something to hide? Maybe you were an "Officer" in the Greenpeace navy...

I think that you owe it to your Socialist Left folks the real history of Bill Arkin