Sunday, December 27, 2009
Gaza 2009: We Will Never Forget
Click this link ...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9mkRiGbgZg&feature=video_response
China and Russia may mean more Spielberg
Russia and China are planning to get more involved in the Middle
As it pertains to China, in the below RIA Novosti article we learn that China appears to be posturing somewhat to protect these important Middle East ties. We learn that “trade between China and Arab states totaled $132 billion in 2008, and that China’s influence in the region is continually rising.” Obviously, China will not allow events in the Middle East to unfold in a way that is contrary to its interests. With U.N. veto power, it has the power and ability to upset the kosher apple cart even if only briefly.
“China is likely to develop a growing military presence in the Middle East over the next decade to protect its interests in the region, a British analyst said….”
China currently world’s largest standing army and according to the below Bloomberg article planned to increase its military budget by roughly 15% so that it could compete “for regional influence with the U.S. and Japan.” Despite this increase, China’s military spending would still be 25% to 30% lower than U.S. military spending. But keep in mind, China does not have to wage war against Israel’s enemies and I am confident that will not change. And we should know, waging war against Israel’s enemies is a long-term, expansive, and expensive endeavor. China avoids that extreme liability on its military budget.
More from RIA Novosti article:
“However, he (the British analyst) said the international community is also watching closely what Russia plans to do in the Middle East, as countries in the region still miss the strong role of the Soviet Union.”
So, that takes us to a recent article in Reuters. There we learn that Russia appears to be on the brink of becoming more visible and active in the Middle East, especially the “Smoke and Mirrors” game that is usually dominated by just Israel and the United States. Russia has really been out of the game for twenty years or so. In addition to its U.N. veto power, it already has membership in diplomatic committee with the E.U., the U.N., and the United States.
“Russia on Tuesday said it planned to become more involved in resolving the Middle East conflict along with the European Union and the United States.”
Not only are Russia and China already strategically linked to the Middle East, Iran specifically, they are also already strategically inked to one another. A couple of months ago, Vladimir Putin was quoted in the Chinese press saying, “Russia and China have become genuine and comprehensive strategic and cooperative partners in recent years.” There is also a not-to-distant common history under Communism while the U.S.S.R. was still a powerhouse. Within geographic proximity, even sharing a common border, the geo-political history between these two Asian countries goes back hundreds of years.
China has the largest population in the world, holding roughly 20% of the global population. With that comes a huge energy demand and though China produces enough crude oil to put it in the very top of the top oil producing countries in the world, just behind Iran in fact, it must also rely on imports to satisfy its total demand for crude oil. There is a China-Russia oil pipeline already in the works and China gets much of its current oil imports from the Middle East, particularly Iran. With all the economic sanctions already imposed on Iran from the West, Tehran is happy to export oil to the East, and a very large portion of that goes to China.
When I think rationally about what all of this means to the Middle East game of Smoke and Mirrors, it makes me think that the rules of the game may change somewhat in the future. Israel may not be the only game-changer, rule maker in the future. Sure, I would expect the U.S. taxpayer to keep funding it, I just suspect the U.S. government may find it tougher to facilitate the game from a political perspective.
Think about the role Russia has played in the world within the past century, the global super power that it was and the one that it still is, strengthening more and more all the time. Think about how much China has nearly monopolized certain consumer and electronic markets and how dependent the U.S. is on Chinese products (walk around Wal-Mart for a while if you need a reminder). Think about how much leverage this gives China and Russia on the world stage.
Then think about what vested interest either of these countries, China or Russia, may have with Israel. Israel has no oil to export to China and only creates a barrier to any country that relies on oil imports to satisfy domestic energy demands. Russia can not find much of a market for its military technology in Israel when the U.S. already gives a free supply. Russia can not supplement any nuclear programs in Israel as it is already expected to have the strongest nuclear program in that region, albeit all on the hush-hush and down low. You know, one of those “Open, Public Top Secrets”. Speculate as to how much economic, military, and diplomatic aid either of these countries invest in Israel. Ponder how entrenched the lethal poisons of Hollywood and the controlled mass-media are in these countries.
I am not saying a stronger presence from China or Russia in Middle East affairs is good or bad for the Palestinians or Iran. I suspect it would be better for both. I am just saying the strategic variables could change and with that, so could Israel’s options.
Perhaps waiting on the “Smoke and Mirrors” game to continue, paying handsome dividends to Israel as it does, will yield to a more aggressive Israeli position. Perhaps in the not too distant future, the only option Israel sees available is a military one, using the ample military supply the U.S. has afforded it.
Israel could care less which option it employs. Sure, the military option will be a bit messier for Israel, but as long as it can rely on its democracy prostitutes in the West, you remember, what it likes to call “our friends, the US and other enlightened countries”, a mess can be cleaned up. The military option will just mean more Spielberg movies and controlled-media induced democracy. You know, just to keep all us soft enough to help keep the kosher apple cart on its wheels.
Harry Reid: I'm Santa This Year
WASHINGTON (SR) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is vowing to "deliver the goods" in passing the Senate health care reform legislation on Christmas Eve.
"This Christmas I'm Santa Claus, and me and my elves are bringing every person in America the biggest, most expensive present they've ever received," said Reid in an interview yesterday. "It's so huge it may not even fit down the chimney, hahaha."
Senate leaders have been working round the clock to finalize their 10-year, trillion dollar bill in time for the final vote on Christmas Eve, despite the fact that the majority of Americans adamantly do not want it.
One unnamed Republican senator bristled at Reid's comparing himself to Santa, saying, "Since when did Santa turn into a Godless, dried-up, bony old baby-killing socialist? The Antichrist maybe, but he's definitely not Santa."
"You can put a pretty bow on a pile of sh*t, but that doesn't make it a present anyone would want," said another Senate member. "I'll tell you one thing, when that little gift from Hell flies down the chimney and hits the fire, the stench will be so bad voters will still be smelling it next election."
My comments: Damn, I was hoping for an I-Pod!
MORRIS: No gain, plenty of pain, on Day One
Obama's health care bill, the poisoned Kool-Aid making its way through the Senate, will not confer any of its supposed benefits on Americans until 2013. But they will find themselves chafing at its restrictions and paying its taxes immediately after the law takes effect.
This odd juxtaposition of "suffer now, benefit later" is the byproduct of the administration's sleight of hand in specifying 10 years' worth of cuts and taxes in the legislation, but deferring its benefits for the first four years. By comparing six years of spending with 10 years of taxing, it managed to appear deficit-neutral under the rules of the Congressional Budget Office. In fact, the annual revenues fall far short of covering any single year's worth of spending, adding to the deficit for each of the last six years over the next 10 ---- but, viewing the decade as a whole, it appears deficit-neutral.
Yet the political price is hardly neutral. Democrats who misguidedly vote for this monstrosity will face immediate political repercussions.
The harshest of these backlashes will come from the elderly, who will face the rationing immediately.
The first "no" will hit the 10 million elderly who now rely on Medicare Advantage to pay for the care Medicare itself does not cover. In a payoff to AARP, Obama gutted this program in his bill, ending over $100 billion in federal premium subsidies. These 10 million voters will get the grim news that their premiums are going up and their benefits dropping early in 2010. The goal, of course, is to force them to drop Medicare Advantage and sign up, instead, for Medi-gap insurance ---- offered, not coincidentally, by the AARP ---- which provides less coverage at higher cost.
Young people without health insurance can expect to start writing $750 annual checks to Washington to pay the fines written into the bill. (And, after the Conference Committee finishes its work, the fines may be higher.)
All Americans will soon find their insurance premiums rising as a result of the bill. The young uninsured will not buy policies. Why should they? Why not just pay the $750 fine each year? Why pay between 2 percent and 10 percent of their household income before subsidies kick in? It makes no financial sense for anyone making more than $30,000 to pay for coverage. (And most of those under that threshold will be covered by Medicaid, not by private insurance.)
There is no reason for the young to buy private insurance. The legislation requires that health insurers take all comers and not raise rates based on pre-existing conditions. So the young can get coverage when they need it, having only paid $750 per year beforehand.
The difference in cost will, of course, be borne by families throughout America, who will see their health insurance premiums increase. President Obama and his Democratic rubber stamps may appreciate that they are not raising taxes on the middle class, just raising mandatory health insurance premiums, but the distinction is likely to be lost on swing voters.
From now on, any increase in health insurance premiums will become the political responsibility of the Obama administration. As Gen. Colin Powell once said of Iraq, "You break it, you own it."
By DICK MORRISDick Morris is a political consultant.
Mr. 10%: Our Man in Islamabad
In my office hang photos of this writer with Pakistan's last four leaders. Two of them - Zia ul Haq and Benazir Bhutto - were murdered. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted in a military coup led by photo number four, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who was deposed last year by Pakistan's military.
Either leading Pakistan is a job with very poor career prospects, or I'm a jinx. Take your pick.
Now, in a delicious irony, Washington is finally getting the democracy it has been calling for in Pakistan - and it's the Mother of all Backfires.
I've not met Pakistan's current president, Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto. But I've written for decades about corruption charges that relentlessly dog him. At one point, I was threatened with having acid thrown in my face if I kept writing about the Bhutto-Zardari's financial scandals.
Asif Ali Zardari became known to one and all as "Mr. 10%" from the time when he was a minister in his wife's government, in charge of approving government contracts. Critics say the 10% and other kickbacks produced millions for the Zardari-Bhutto family.
But Benazir Bhutto repeatedly insisted to me that she and her husband - who was tortured and jailed for years on corruption charges - were innocent and victims of political persecution in Pakistan's utterly corrupt legal system where "justice" goes to the biggest payer of bribes, and politicians use courts to punish their rivals. Small wonder so many Pakistanis are calling for far more honest Islamic justice.
In 2008, Washington sought to rescue Musharraf's foundering dictatorship by convincing the popular but still self-exiled Benazir Bhutto to front for him as democratic window-dressing for continued military rule. Her price: amnesty for a long list of corruption charges against her and her husband. The US and Britain quietly arranged the amnesty for the Bhuttos and thousands of their indicted supporters (and other political figures).
Just before her assassination, Benazir told me jealous associates of Musharraf were gunning for her.
Asif Zardari then inherited Benazir's Pakistan People's Party, the nation's largest. He became president, thanks to strong US and British political and financial support.
Zardari repaid this support by facilitating the US war in Afghanistan, and allowed the Pentagon to keep using Pakistan's bases and military personnel, without which the war in Afghanistan could not be prosecuted. Washington promised Pakistan's elite, pro-western leadership at least $8 billion.
That sleazy deal has now come unstuck thanks to Pakistan's newest, rather improbable democratic hero, Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. As chief justice of the Supreme Court under Musharraf, he was expected to rubber stamp government decisions.
Instead, Justice Chaudhry began enforcing the law by reinstating the dismissed corruption charges and examining the legality of Musharraf's self-appointed second term.
Musharraf, with shameful backing from Washington and London, had Justice Chaudhry kicked off the bench. He, and a score of fellow judges who would not toe the line, were placed under house arrest. Some were beaten. Their pensions were canceled.
But the ebbing of Zardari's power has resulted in the reinstatement by parliament of Justice Chaudhry, who promptly reinstated all the old charges. For the first time, Pakistan was tasting the true institutions of democracy at work.
Zardari has presidential immunity against criminal charges. But his chief lieutenants face prosecution, notably regime strongman, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, and Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar. Both are key supporters and facilitators of US military operations in Afghanistan, America's use of Pakistani bases, and Pakistan's war against its own rebellious Pashtun tribesmen (AKA "Taliban").
Opposition parties are demanding Zardari and senior aides resign. Islamabad is in an uproar just when Washington needs Pakistan's government to intensify the war against the so-called Pakistani Taliban and support President Barack Obama's expanded war in Afghanistan. Washington is also intensifying drone attacks inside Pakistan, that are provoking fierce public outrage against the US, and weighing air attacks on Baluchistan Province.
Skeletons are dancing out of Zardari's closets: $63 million in illegal kickbacks and commissions allegedly hidden in Swiss bank accounts; accusation of laundering $13.7 million in Switzerland. Charges of kickbacks on helicopter and warplane deals. In 2003, Swiss magistrates found Zardari and Bhutto guilty of money laundering, sentencing them to a six month suspended jail term, a fine of $50,000, and ordering them to repay $11 million to Pakistan's government.
Zardari has an estimated personal fortune of $2 billion; luxurious properties in the US, France, Spain and Britain, and on it goes. He avoided trial in Switzerland by claiming mental illness.
In 2008, Gen. Musharraf had all charges against the Bhuttos dropped as part of the US-engineered plan for a diumverate with Benazir.
The Bhuttos remain one of the largest feudal landowners in a desperately poor nation where annual income is US$1,027 and illiteracy over 50%. Pakistan has been ruled since its creation in 1947 by either callous feudal landlords, who bought and sold politicians like bags of Basmati rice, or by generals.
It appears that Zardari's days as Washington's man in Islamabad are numbered. Anti-American fury is surging, with popular claims that Pakistan has been "occupied" by the US, treated like a third-rate banana republic, and is run by corrupt, US-installed stooges and crooks. Shades of Iran under the Shah, and Egypt under Sadat.
Many Pakistanis blame the current bloody wave of bombings in their nation on US mercenaries from Xe (formerly Blackwater), and old foe India staging attacks in revenge for decades of bombings in Kashmir, Punjab and its eastern hill states by Pakistani intelligence.
Most Pakistanis believe Washington is bent on tearing apart their unstable nation to seize its nuclear weapons.
Washington is almost back to square one in turbulent Pakistan. When Zardari goes or is kicked upstairs as an impotent figurehead, attention will turn to Pakistan's 617,000-man military and its commander, Gen - or should we say "president-elect" Ashfaq Kiyani? He is already in almost constant contact with the Pentagon.
In 2010, the ugly acronym, "Afpak," will bedevil, befuddle, and consume the Obama White House that so unwisely and rashly ignored Gen. Douglas MacArthur's wise warning to avoid land wars in Asia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)