Canadian Content - International Politics

French military is falling apart, documents show

Blackleaf — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:37:21 GMT

New documents show that France's military is falling apart, with MOST of its tanks, helicopters and jet fighters unusable.

France is the world's third-biggest defence spender after the United States and Britain though, unlike the US and Britain, spnding on the police force is included as part of France's defence spending.

Whereas Britain spends cash on buying - or building - some of the world's most hi-tech weaponry, such as the RAF Typhoon, the RAF Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the British Army Apache Helicopter, robots to search for bombs in buildings and the new Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for the RAF, the French military, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be acquiring the best equipment.

French army falling apart, documents show

By Henry Samuel in Paris
06/06/2008
The Telegraph

Most of France's tanks, helicopters and jet fighters are unusable and its defence apparatus is on the verge of "falling apart", it has emerged.

France's military has been given a bleak prognosis

According to confidential defence documents leaked to the French press, less than half of France's Leclerc tanks � 142 out of 346 � are operational and even these regularly break down.

Less than half of its Puma helicopters, 37 per cent of its Lynx choppers and 33 per cent of its Super Frelon models � built 40 years ago � are in a fit state to fly, according to documents seen by Le Parisien newspaper.

Two thirds of France's Mirage F1 reconnaissance jets are unusable at present.

When it comes to military technology, France is far behind Britain, as this new helmet for the RAF's Joint Strike Fighter aircraft shows

According to army officials, the precarious state of France's defence equipment almost led to catastrophe in April, when French special forces rescued the passengers and crew of a luxury yacht held by pirates off the Somali coast.

Although ultimately a success, the rescue operation nearly foundered at an early stage, when two of the frigates carrying troops suffered engine failure, and a launch laden with special forces' equipment sunk under its weight.

Later, an Atlantic 2 jet tracking the pirates above Somali territory suffered engine failure and had to make an emergency landing in Yemen.

"External operations, in the Ivory Coast and Lebanon are a fig leaf: we are able to keep up the pretence but in ten years our defence apparatus will fall apart," one high-ranking official said.

The disclosure comes just ten days before President Nicolas Sarkozy announces a major reform of the armed forces, with a defence white paper outlining France's military priorities for the next 15 years.

He is expected to argue that the situation can only improve by reducing the number of France's operational troops from 50,000 to 30,000, and its fighter aircraft, as well as closing military bases.

He will also use the occasion to push for greater military integration in Europe, an issue that France will highlight when it takes over the EU's six-month rotating presidency in July.

French proposals circulating in Brussels show that France wants a new EU military headquarters based in the Belgian capital and run by Europe's new foreign policy chief. It is also calling for a bigger rapid reaction force and for countries to spend more on defence.
France has played down its European defence ambitions for fear of boosting the No vote in Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon treaty on June 12.

In parallel to beefing up the EU's defence capability, Mr Sarkozy is keen on France becoming a full member of Nato's integrated military command structure, which Charles de Gaulle left in 1966. But he is unlikely to make a decision on this until next year.

WORLD'S BIGGEST DEFENCE SPENDERS 2007/08 (US dollars)

1) United States: 583,283,000,000
2) Britain: 79,872,000,000
3) France: 74,690,470,000 (including the police force)
4) China: 59,000,000,000
5) Japan: 48,860,000,000
6) Germany: 45,930,000,000
7) Russia: 41,050,000,000
8 ) Italy: 40,060,000,000
9) Saudi Arabia: 31,050,000,000
10) South Korea: 28,940,000,000

telegraph.co.uk

Ambiguous Albion: Gordon Brown's foreign policy is timid and unclear

Blackleaf — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:12:38 GMT

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown may be more inactive on the world stage than his predecessor Tony Blair (being the former Chancellor of the Exchequer he seems interest only in the economic side of foreign policy), but this isn't necessarily a bad thing....

Britain and the world

Ambiguous Albion

Jun 26th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Gordon Brown�s foreign policy is timid and unclear

Bridgeman Art Library

SO MUCH that has transpired during Gordon Brown�s first year as prime minister has been unexpected. A politician renowned for strategic cunning has erred repeatedly (most famously over whether to call a snap election last autumn) and now languishes in the polls; an intellectual with an eye for the big picture still lacks a theme for his government, or even a signature reform. Less surprising, perhaps, is that foreign policy has not played the vaulting role in his premiership that it did under Tony Blair, his predecessor, whose time on the world stage included five wars, the pronouncement of a radical doctrine of humanitarian intervention and a mission to put Britain at the heart of the European Union (EU).

Compared with such a record, Mr Brown�s foreign policy has shown a circumspection�five months elapsed before he made his first major speech on the topic, and he has few diplomatic initiatives to his name�that cannot adequately be explained by domestic distractions. True, a spluttering economy has grabbed his attention, made voters less indulgent of the jet-setting beloved of Mr Blair and diminished the soft power that Britain enjoyed when it was seen as a country that had mastered globalisation. But economic woes across the Channel have not stopped Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, rebuilding his country�s relationship with America (though he had more need to do so, given the unpopularity of the previous president, Jacques Chirac, in Washington) and propounding bold ideas for Europe.

Despite being hugely unpopular at home, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is very popular abroad

One explanation is that, after a decade as finance minister, Mr Brown has developed a taste for only the economic dimension of foreign policy. He has a zeal for international development (Foreign Office types complain of the aid budget growing while embassies are closed to save cash), wants reform of the Bretton Woods institutions and believes that trade can discourage conflict�as chancellor of the exchequer he once dispatched Ed Balls, now a member of the cabinet, to investigate the economic obstacles to peace in the Middle East. It is telling that Mr Brown was the only foreign head of government at a big energy conference in Jeddah on June 22nd.

Another theory is that, whereas Mr Blair felt liberated from public opinion in foreign affairs, Mr Brown�s conduct abroad is no less guided by political calculation than his domestic policy. As a result, vision gives way to cautious ambiguity. His equivocation over signing the EU treaty last autumn is a case in point; his habit of blowing hot and cold in relations with America (he was coolly correct with President Bush last summer but has warmed up since) is another. Robin Niblett, the director of Chatham House, a research institute, draws the contrast with Mr Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, both of whom �made the call that improving relations with America was in their national interest, even though it would be controversial at home�.

Of course, Germany and France had ground to make up that Britain did not, and the prime minister can mount a decent defence to all this. For one thing, his desire (outlined in a speech in Boston in April) to bind rising powers such as Russia and China into a rules-based world does constitute a foreign-policy vision of sorts. For another, even if Britain is less visible internationally than under Mr Blair, it is too early to say whether its influence has suffered for it. Hyperactivity on the world stage is hazardous: the Iraq war that Mr Blair led Britain into is now regarded by most Britons as a mistake, and Mr Sarkozy�s pushiness has alienated Germany.

Seen in this light, Mr Brown�s caution has been well judged. A global poll for Newsweek, an American magazine, released on June 16th suggested that Mr Brown is one of the more popular world leaders�outside his own country, at least. And, though Atlanticists and Europhiles loudly urge him in opposite directions, this is the narcissism of small differences: no prime minister will ever be less than engaged with both America and Europe.

Unlike Mr Blair, who essentially ran foreign policy himself, Mr Brown delegates. David Miliband, his foreign secretary, has made high-minded noises on spreading democracy, as well as showing a tough streak on challenges such as Russia and Iran. �He is the first foreign secretary since Robin Cook [who served in Mr Blair�s first term] to have a vision,� says Mark Leonard of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank.

But Mr Brown cannot draw on vast reserves of foreign-policy thinking in his Labour Party.

Blairite outriders and left-wingers are united in their focus on public services. The old Labour right, whose no-nonsense take on national security was embodied by George Robertson, a former NATO secretary-general, is largely extinct. Whereas the Conservative Party harbours a cacophony of voices on foreign policy, ranging from youthful neocons to grizzled realists, Labour has only a few mumbles.

Yet Mr Brown�s lack of sharp elbows on the world stage still perturbs many. America and China can rely on their vast armies and economies to secure them a hearing; the influence of medium-sized powers such as Britain depends greatly on the guile and boldness of their leaders. Mr Niblett points to �missed opportunities� for Mr Brown to take a lead, such as on the future of the EU�s defence capability. Others worry that Britain cannot afford to wait for the inauguration of a new American president to reassert itself as Washington�s closest ally, given assiduous competition from France and Germany. Mr Brown, with Mr Sarkozy, was instrumental in setting up a United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur. But he is generally more ambiguous on humanitarian intervention than his predecessor, though conflict in Zimbabwe may yet force him to take a stand.

In all these areas, Mr Brown�s constant hedging may be more in line with recent British tradition than Mr Blair�s sometimes reckless certainty. Only the prime minister�s worst enemies would claim that he has been an outright failure in foreign affairs; but not even his cheerleaders (a rapidly diminishing group) would suggest that he has distinguished himself either.

economist.org

"Put Mugabe under greater pressure," Britain tells the UN

Blackleaf — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:51:43 GMT

Britain's Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has said that Britain will continue to urge the UN to put further pressure on tyrant Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe.

Meanwhile, the Zimbabwe Cricket Team has pulled out of next year's Twenty20 World Cup, which is being held in England.

"The demons in the British Government need to be exorcised," says the Zimbabwean president who rigs elections, tortures his own people and condemns millions to poverty and starvation

'Put Mugabe under pressure'

By VINCE SOODIN
03 Jul 2008
The Sun

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband

BRITAIN is hoping the UN will put further pressure on Robert Mugabe next week to end the violence and “political limbo” in Zimbabwe.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the Commons there must be targeted sanctions “punishing” those within or associated with the Mugabe regime.

“We will continue to push for a UN Security Council resolution calling for further sanctions including an arms embargo, a travel ban, an asset-freeze on key regime figures.

“A draft is now circulating. I can confirm it is a strong and clear draft resolution and very much hope there will be a vote early next week on it.”

In a short topical debate on the situation in Zimbabwe, Mr Miliband said EU foreign ministers later this month would decide how to “widen and deepen” existing EU targeted measures, including an extension to the asset-freeze.

Limbo

The England Cricket Board had also been asked to request that the International Cricket Council annuls Zimbabwe’s inclusion in the 20/20 World Cup due to be held here next year.

Mr Miliband said Mugabe had brought Zimbabwe “to its knees,” adding: “Politically it is in limbo.

“In his determination to cling to power, Mugabe has turned on his own people.”

The economic prospects were “bleak,” last weekend’s election a “sham” and the G8 had expressed its “disgust”.

Britain’s goal was simple “to ensure the Government of Zimbabwe reflects the will of the people of Zimbabwe.”

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said the Government was right to seek a strong resolution from the UN Security Council and called for Mugabe to be referred to the International Criminal Court.

RE-ELECTED ... president Robert Mugabe

************************************************** ***************************
Zimbabwe pull out of cricket's World T20 Cup

04 Jul 2008
The Sun

The Zimbabwe cricket team has withdrawn from next year's Twenty20 World Cup in England

ZIMBABWE have withdrawn from next year's World Twenty20 tournament in England.

The International Cricket Council have been discussing the future of the country's cricket team at a board meeting in Dubai.

England and South Africa have already broken off cricketing relations with Zimbabwe over the election process that saw Robert Mugabe re-elected as president.

The future of the tournament was likely to be thrown into doubt had the country retained their intention to compete.

But this deal represents the best compromise with the event still going ahead while Zimbabwe lose none of their financial backing as a full member of the ICC.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown welcomed the announcement, saying: "This will allow the Twenty20 tournament in England to go ahead.

“It also sends a powerful message to Zimbabwe that the Government must change or face further isolation.”

An ICC statement said: "The Zimbabwe delegation to ICC Annual Conference week is aware of the decision of the British government not to allow its bilateral series in England in 2009 to go ahead.

"Zimbabwe Cricket has also taken note that the British government is likely to refuse to grant visas for the Zimbabwe cricket team to take part in the ICC World Twenty20 2009.

"Therefore, the Zimbabwe delegation has decided to recommend to its board that the team should withdraw from that event.

"The delegation has undertaken to report back on the decision of its board to the ICC within one month.

"The delegation will report to its board that it will not suffer financially as a result of its non-participation in the ICC World Twenty20 2009.

"The Zimbabwe delegation has agreed to take this decision in the greater interest of world cricket and the ICC.

"This recommendation should be viewed as a one-off and will not be taken as a precedent."

CURRENT CRICKET WORLD RANKINGS (TEST MATCHES ONLY)

1) Australia 141
2) India 111
3) England 110
4) South Africa 109
5) Sri Lanka 106
6) Pakistan 94
7) New Zealand 88
8 )West Indies 77
9) Bangladesh 1
Zimbabwe NOW BANNED FROM RANKINGS
thesun.co.uk

Our Queen is better value than a republican nonentity

Blackleaf — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:00:48 GMT

The author, Frederick Forsyth, explains in his Daily Express column why the constitutional monarchy is the best form of governance in the world today.....

By author Frederick Forsyth
5th Jully 2008
The Daily Express

Our Queen is better value than a republican nonentity

Would you rather have a constitutional monarch.....

...... or a president?

As usual when two words are mentioned together, half the media go into a slightly demented Robespierre mode.

Those words are "Queen" and "money."

I don't mind someone being called a republican but I do object to people calling themselves journalists sinking into grotesque distortion. So just a few points.

The palaces are NOT the Queen's. They belong to the State and thus the people and therefore us. If we had a president he would almost certainly live in something like Buckingham Palace (just as the US President lives in the White House, a palace in all but name), which would still have to be maintained by the taxpayer.

Buckingham Palace belongs to the people, NOT the Queen......

........ and it's not just monarchs who live in grand houses - presidents do, too

Two, since 1760 we, the people, have cut an annual deal with the monarch; we vote the crowned head a Civil List (an annual allowance) and the monarch passes over to the people the income from the Crown Estates. Last year, the monarchy cost �40 million; the Crown Estates made us �200 million. We made a PROFIT of �160 million out of the monarchy.

Third, the monarchy cost every Briton 66p. The Italian presidency costs each Italian almost double at �1.24. We get the most famous woman in the world. All together now - who is Italy's president?

I'm afraid it's either a dignified, dutiful constitutional monarch (Elizabeth II); an executive president two-thirds of the electorate can't stand (take your pick); or a charming entity called Giorgia Napolitano. No, he's not an ice cream, he's the Italian prez.

We Brits do pretty well. you know.

express.co.uk

Does this surprise you about Iran?

Kreskin — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:54:59 GMT

Iran is considered the most liberal muslim country in regards to assisted human reproduction.

* There are approximately 50 IVF clinics in Iran.

* In 2003 the Iranian Parliament ratified the Embryo Donation to Infertile Spouses Act, allowing married couples to donate embryos to infertile couples.

* The Supreme leaders (religious) approve of IVF based on writings in the Qu'ran.

I find it interesting that Islam supports IVF and Christianity (or at least the Catholic Church) doesn't.

Africa: Is there no cure?

dancing-loon — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:49:13 GMT

Zimbabwe is already destitute, now a new crisis looms over Somalia:

Fears of another Somalia famine rise

Quote:

At a dusty, windblown emergency feeding centre in Somalia just three kilometres from the Ethiopian border, one-year-old Abdiqadir is being weighed by medics. Skin and bones, he weighs just nine pounds, less than many newborn babies in more fortunate countries than this one.

I can't imagine how this child can still be alive! The body is a miracle machine!

Quote:

Destitute, his mother, 30-year-old Miriam Tawil, walked for two days with her four young children to the emergency centre in the town of El Barde. They made the journey without food or water.

I wish I could pack my knapsack and walk over there and bring them the contents of my pantry shelves!
Last night we Canadians blew a little fortune into the air, celebrating Canada Day. Couldn't we for once skip such a frivolity and instead have a food drive for the poor on this earth?

Read the full article here:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/0...-mcguffin.html

Nelson Mandela - no longer terrorist suspect

data — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:51:05 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7484517.stm

Quote:

Tuesday, 1 July 2008:
US President George W Bush has signed a bill removing Nelson Mandela and South African leaders from the US terror watch list, officials say.

So Nelson Mandela no longer risks Guantanamo after being released from Robben Island.

Fine present to his 90th birthday. But what says it about the donator, the US administration?

Mai Tubie (chimbwidzz) wrote:

Quote:

You misunderstood. There got included only ANC members.
Not your Mugabe and other thugs of the ZANU gang, who active struggle to belong to such terror list (struggle heros). http://newzim.proboards86.com/index....&thread=145073

I've lost interest in politics.....have you?

jellyfarm — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:39:31 GMT

'Nuff said....I've lost the urge to spew out superlatives against the most villainous politicians there are on the planet in a day and age where the government's conscientiousness has all but zipped down to zero.

Now it's like people have to take up arms to help the rest of those left behind through private volunteer organisations, NGOs, philanthropists, foundations and yes, Oprah!

WTF are politicians doing?

We're experiencing a future of higher costs due to power players and having to work harder and earn more so that we all become dead droids by the time we come home which is probably why we aren't able to think or be even bothered about Minister X's account logs.

I've really lost interest in political analysis. All it is is a total waste of energy where we get to ding-dong all day about an individual who probably is only in it for the power and not to make a real change.

These wars are about oil, not democracy

Avro — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:35:29 GMT

By ERIC MARGOLIS

PARIS -- The ugly truth behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars finally has emerged.
Four major western oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total are about to sign U.S.-brokered no-bid contracts to begin exploiting Iraq's oil fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three decades ago when he nationalized Iraq's oil industry. The U.S.-installed Baghdad regime is welcoming them back.
Iraq is getting back the same oil companies that used to exploit it when it was a British colony.
As former fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. The invasion was about SUV's, not democracy.
Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1,680-km pipeline project expected to cost $8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and later oil from the Caspian basin to Pakistan's coast where tankers will transport it to the West.
The Caspian basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100-200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world's last remaining known energy El Dorado is a strategic priority for the western powers.
But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: Through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Iran is taboo for Washington. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar.

PIPELINE DEAL

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the U.S. firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on the Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and hired a minor Afghan official, Hamid Karzai.
Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the U.S. deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened the Taliban with war.
In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept sending money to the Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it "on side" for possible use in a war against China.
The 9/11 attacks, about which the Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the U.S. stayed on, built bases -- which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route -- and installed former Unocal "consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader.
Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The Iraq cover story was weapons of mass destruction and democracy.
Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by U.S., Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the U.S. military and its allies have become an "energy protection force."

ADDED BENEFIT

From Washington's viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India.
India's energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade. Delhi, which has its own designs on Afghanistan, is cock-a-hoop over the new pipeline plan.
Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian energy exports.
Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The U.S. is a great power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America's world power. Let's be realistic. Afghanistan and Iraq are about oil, nothing else.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Colum...953041-sun.php

The Queen strips Mugabe of his knighthood for failing to uphold democracy

Blackleaf — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:24:28 GMT

Britain is finally starting to take action with with its former colony Zimbabwe (no-one else seems to be doing so).

The Queen has stripped Mugabe of his knighthood over his disregard for democracy. This follows Britain banning the Zimbabwe cricket team playing in England in May next year against the England&Wales team, and Zimbabwe being thrown out of the Commonwealth until it gets its act together.

Mugabe stripped of his knighthood after Queen gives her backing as Britain starts to cut ties with Zimbabwean regime

By Daily Mail Reporter
25th June 2008
Daily Mail

Brown threatens to name and shame the 'criminal cabal' propping Mugabe's regime up
England & Wales Cricket Board agrees to ban Zimbabwe from Twenty20 World Cup tour in England after pressure from the Government
Zimbabwe Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai says the country is 'burning' as he begs the international community to intervene

Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe has been stripped of his knighthood as Britain begins to cut links with his hardline regime.

The Foreign Office said Mugabe's knighthood was anulled with the Queen's backing over his "abuse of human rights" and "abject disregard for democracy".

Robert Mugabe pictured with the Queen during his state visit to Britain in 1994, when he was awarded the honorary knighthood

Prime Minister Gordon Brown threatened to name and shame the "criminal cabal" keeping Mugabe in power, as Zimbabwe Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai emerged briefly from his refuge in the Dutch embassy in Harare to warn the country was "burning" and beg the international community to intervene.

Though a group of southern African nations held an emergency meeting today to discuss the crisis, South Africa president Thabo Mbeki - the leader charged with the task of negotiating a solution - refused to attend.

Mr Brown revealed also today that he was seeking to block a Zimbabwe cricket tour of England planned for next year.

The Queen approved the annulment of Mr Mugabe's knighthood - awarded in 1994 - on the recommendation of Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "This action has been taken as a mark of revulsion at the abuse of human rights and abject disregard for the democratic process in Zimbabwe over which President Mugabe has presided."

"We are preparing intensified sanctions - financial and travel sanctions - against named members of the Mugabe regime," Mr Brown said during his weekly question-and-answer session in the House of Commons.

The ball's on the slates: Robert Mugabe kicks a football in a crowd of party supporters at a campaign rally held in Banket

The Foreign Office and a European Union list confirm that 131 individuals connected to Mugabe's regime are currently the subject of EU travel and financial sanctions, under EU measures drafted in 2002.

Beyond that, Downing Street office said an unspecified number of other leaders of Zimbabwe's regime have had their assets frozen and their travel restricted by Britain.

Britain will push the EU for further action against certain individuals, Brown told lawmakers.

"We do know the names of the individuals who are surrounding Mugabe at the moment, we know the names of the criminal cabal that is trying to keep him in power, and we will name those individuals and these will be part of the next stage of the sanctions," Brown said.

In a statement the England and Wales Cricket Board said the British government had given it "a clear instruction that Zimbabwe's bilateral tour scheduled under the ICC Future Tours Programme for 2009 should be cancelled".

"The ECB deplores the position in Zimbabwe and, like Cricket South Africa, finds this untenable. Therefore all bilateral arrangements are suspended with Zimbabwe Cricket with immediate effect," the statement said.

"The ECB...welcome the Government's decision and share the Government's concerns about the deteriorating situation and lack of human rights in Zimbabwe."

The Twenty20 World Cup, which at present includes Zimbabwe, will be staged in England next year.

Zimbabwe's opposition leader emerged briefly from his refuge at the Dutch Embassy today to call for African leaders to guide talks to end the country's crisis.

Morgan Tsvangirai said the goal of the talks would be forming a coalition transitional authority for his country.

Dialogue could not begin until there was an end to attacks on his supporters and a release of "political prisoners" including top opposition figure Tendai Biti, he added.

"What is important is that both parties must realize the country is burning and the only way is to sit down and find a way out of it," Tsvangirai told reporters at his home in Harare.

Zimbabwean Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai is greeted by joyful supporters as he briefly emerges from the Dutch embassy on Wednesday

Mr Mugabe is the first foreigner to be stripped of an honorary knighthood since Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989, the day before his execution.

The move follows growing calls for Mr Mugabe to have the honour removed. Foreign Office Minister Mark Malloch Brown has previously insisted that now was not the right time.

The Foreign Office spokesman said today: "Our focus has been on improving the situation for ordinary Zimbabweans on the ground and it remains so.

"But we can no longer justify an individual who is responsible for a consistent campaign of human rights violations and the disregard for the democratic process retaining an honour.

"As international and regional leaders have said, Mugabe's actions in the run-up to the second round of elections has demonstrated his total disregard for democracy and human rights.

"His actions have proved beyond all argument that he is not worthy to retain this honour."

Mr Mugabe's appointment as an honorary Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Bath occurred during his state visit to the UK in 1994.

"The honour was given when conditions in Zimbabwe were very different," the Foreign Office spokesman added.

"It is a sad fact that, since 1994, Mugabe has overseen the collapse of Zimbabwe and brought misery to millions."

The Foreign Office also tonight urged against all travel to Zimbabwe.

Its advice was previously against all but essential travel to the southern African country.

"There has been a marked increase in violence in Zimbabwe in the run-up to the second round of the Presidential election on June 27 and the situation there remains highly unpredictable, volatile and could deteriorate quickly, without warning," it said in a statement.

"We judge that for the time being British nationals should avoid all travel to Zimbabwe."

dailymail.co.uk

EU and democracy: How EU leaders respond when voters give "wrong" answer

Blackleaf — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:24:19 GMT

Last week, the Irish voted "NO!" to the EU Constitution.

But the EU, which has shown itself to be anti-democratic, probably won't take much notice...

Democracy in Europe

Jun 19th 2008
From The Economist print edition

How Europe's leaders respond when voters give the wrong answer

Illustration by Peter Schrank

EMERGING unsteadily from a Dublin polling station on June 12th, the grey-haired man said that he had voted against the European Union's Lisbon treaty because he knew “nothing” about it. “I haven't a clue,” he added, speaking with a drunk's slow precision. Moments earlier, an old woman explained her “no” vote by murmuring that “we want to keep ourselves here.”

There was a fair amount of this in a day spent outside polling stations. The treaty was “a lot of crap”, said three young women in Ringsend, a dockside area. “If we voted yes, it'd mean abortions, and being called up to a European army,” said one, repeating two of the more effective fibs about Lisbon spun by the no camp. The treaty would mean “homosexuality and different things”, said an intense, bearded young man.

None of this would surprise the diplomats, politicians and Eurocrats who inhabit the EU's corridors of power. Long before the blow of the Irish no, they were inveighing against the folly of putting complex treaties to ordinary voters. Much safer, they say, to leave ratification to national parliaments, as the other 26 EU countries have chosen to do.

In truth, the Irish referendum was not a good advertisement for direct democracy. The commonest reason for saying no was that people did not have enough information about Lisbon, and so felt safer voting no. That is a hard complaint to sustain. In fact Irish voters were bombarded with information, including government-financed leaflets through every door explaining the treaty's main effects. The political establishment united behind Lisbon, filling the airwaves with talking-points.

Some voters who did understand the main provisions of Lisbon treated it like a Rorschach inkblot, using the referendum to vent their broader frustrations about Europe, Ireland and how they were ruled. In poorer districts, people grumbled that Lisbon did “nothing for workers” (some adding quietly that the EU has flooded Ireland with immigrants from eastern Europe). Political leaders were asking voters to believe them when they said the treaty was a good thing, others complained. With the economy sliding and top politicians mired in corruption allegations, who could trust that lot?

All this might comfort EU politicians, notably in the European Parliament, who argue that national referendums are not really democratic at all. But these zealots should be careful. Some Irish voters were indeed muddled on referendum day. But that is a slippery slope to go down. Those same folk vote in elections: are their voices invalid then? In this referendum, working-class areas produced strong no votes and yes votes were concentrated in affluent places. A telephone poll of 2,000 people organised by the European Commission found a majority of men voting yes, but a majority of women no.

Young people under 29 voted against Lisbon by two to one. In other words, a 19th-century-style electoral roll, restricted to older, male property-owners, would have produced a handsome yes for Lisbon. But would that have been more democratic?

There are other reasons why disdaining Irish voters is a terrible idea. Plenty of no voters knew exactly what they disliked about Lisbon. For some, the loss of Ireland's European commissioner and a smaller voting weight summed up their country's reduced clout in the enlarged EU. Others said they were pro-European, but happy with the status quo, rather than deeper political integration. When most no voters said they had not been informed about the treaty, they were really saying they were confused by the competing arguments flying around. And that was a reasonable position: the arguments were contradictory.

Plenty of yes voters confessed to not understanding the treaty, too. But as all mainstream parties lined up behind it, they felt comfortable with it. If the yes campaigners had played their role with more confidence and passion, they might have been more effective in dismissing the claims of the no camp. Instead, the yes camp peddled bland generalisations, as if it were obvious that Europe was good for Ireland. The Irish commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, and the prime minister, Brian Cowen, should kick themselves for remarking that they had not read the Lisbon treaty “cover to cover”. It may have seemed honest and charming at the time. But voter after voter thought they had heard the two men admit that they did not know what was in the text.

Don't read, don't vote

EU governments have muddied the waters when it comes to the merits of referendums.

Fully 11 countries offered referendums on the EU constitution, saying that this was a momentous text worthy of a national debate. In the end, only four votes were held, and the French and Dutch no votes in mid-2005 brought the constitution down. The constitutional fiasco is cited as evidence of the follies of referendums. Yet the EU was happy enough when the Spanish and Luxembourgeois voted yes to the constitution.

Indeed, these two later used their status as referendum-winners to host a meeting of the willing who had approved the original text, clearly feeling that winning a referendum gave them some sort of super-mandate.

European political leaders have proved as guilty as ordinary voters in treating the referendum as a Rorschach test. Federalists said that it showed the need for a two-speed Europe, in which a hard core surges ahead. British Eurosceptics insisted that it was all about preserving Irish sovereignty. The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said the vote proved that Europe needed to protect its citizens from such global ills as higher oil prices.

In short, EU leaders will happily accept referendum results that tell them what they want to hear. But if the votes are unwelcome, they dismiss them as democratically meaningless.

If they really think that this is a sustainable way of dealing with no votes, it is they who haven't a clue.

economist.com

British accuse the French of blackmail over EU Treaty

Blackleaf — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:56:19 GMT

The British have accused the French of arrogance and blackmail in the wake of the Irish voting "NO" to the EU Constitution.

The French President seems to be angry that the people of the Republic of Ireland have rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a national referendum - if only ONE EU state votes against the Treaty, then it won't come into effect.

But EU leaders, which famously often show contempt for democracy, have again shown their hatred for the democratic process by saying that they will still try to get the treaty enforced, despite the Irish rejecing it!

Now the British, quite rightly, accuse the French of blackmailing other EU members by saying that other countries who wish to join the EU cannot do so in the wake of the Irish "NO" vote.

It's not the first time the British have defended democracy against Continental European powers...

Nicolas Sarkozy is accused of blackmail over EU Treaty

By Patrick Hennessy and Justin Stares
22/06/2008
The Telegraph

Nicolas Sarkozy has been accused of putting the brakes on European Union expansion in a desperate attempt to salvage the Lisbon Treaty.

EU's hates demoracy: The people of the Republic of Ireland voted "NO" to the EU "Treaty" (the EU Constitution in all but name) on Thursday, to the dismay of the arrogant French President.

The Conservatives said the French president was "blackmailing" the rest of the EU by claiming that moves to bring more nations into the union - starting with Croatia - would have to be put on hold in the wake of this month’s “No” vote on the Treaty in the Irish referendum.

The Treaty, which seeks to abolish dozens of national vetoes, hand new powers to Brussels and create the post of EU president, cannot come into operation until all 27 member states have ratified it.

Britain, which is not holding a public vote, completed its parliamentary process last week.

But its formal ratification of the Treaty has been postponed at the request of a High Court judge, who is hearing an application to force a referendum.

"What part of "NO!" do you not understand"? :The French President, and EU leaders, have again shown their contempt for democracy in the wake of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish public

The French president, who came up with the idea of the Treaty, a watered-down version of the rejected EU constitution, said: "It is certain that as long as we have not solved the institutional problem, the question of enlargement is stopped de jure or de facto."

Mark Francois, Tory shadow foreign affairs minister, said it was "crystal clear" that enlargement, supported by all three main political parties in Britain, could go ahead without Lisbon coming into force.

Charles Tannock, a Tory Euro-MP and his party’s spokesman on foreign affairs in the European Parliament, said: "This is just blackmail on the Irish and everyone else who wants enlargement. He wants to put pressure on the Irish, to make them feel guilty and to push them into a second vote.

"It’s complete nonsense. Mr Sarkozy is obviously very angry that the Irish have said 'No’."

The Croatian government last week sought assurances from the European Commission and Euro-MPs that its application to join in 2010 would not be affected by the Irish vote.

"This is a classical negotiating ploy by the French,” said the Tory Euro-MP Edward McMillan-Scott. "Britain and everyone else should just ignore this threat.”

telegraph.co.uk

How to train death squads

darkbeaver — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:27:47 GMT

Leaked U.S. Military Manual

How to Train Death Squads and Quash Revolutions from San Salvador to Iraq

From Wikileaks

How to covertly train paramilitaries, censor the press, ban unions, employ terrorists, conduct warrantless searches, suspend habeas corpus, conceal breaches of the Geneva Convention and make the population love it
JULIAN ASSANGE (investigative editor)
Monday June 15, 2008
Wikileaks has released a sensitive 219 page US military counterinsurgency manual. The manual, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004), may be critically described as "what we learned about running death squads and propping up corrupt government in Latin America and how to apply it to other places". Its contents are both history defining for Latin America and, given the continued role of US Special Forces in the suppression of insurgencies, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, history making.
The leaked manual, which has been verified with military sources, is the official US Special Forces doctrine for Foreign Internal Defense or FID.
FID operations are designed to prop up a "friendly" government facing a popular revolution or guerilla insurgency. FID interventions are often covert or quasi-covert due to the unpopular nature of the governments being supported ("In formulating a realistic policy for the use of advisors, the commander must carefully gauge the psychological climate of the HN [Host Nation] and the United States.")
The

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle20125.htm

This is a positive story depending on your perspective.:smile:

Now the Franco-German Empire wants to run the Royal Navy

Blackleaf — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:17:59 GMT

The Sun newspaper is, quite rightly, appalled at France's plans for an EU Navy and for Sarkozy's plans for the EU (aka Franco-German Empire), and not Britain, to control its own aircraft carriers (what would Canadians think if Mexico wanted to control Canadian warships?).

Britain currently has three aircraft carriers (with new giant supercarriers, three times larger, on the way), whereas France only has one - the Charles de Gaulle, which is so decrepit it spends the majority of its time in re-fit.

The Sun, in its own brilliant style, tells the French where to stick their barmy idea....

The Naval signal for ...
EU ocean-going idiots

The only language they understand ... our message to Eurocrats (see below for the key to reading it)

See for yourself ... the key to reading our flag message

By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Political Editor
The Sun

Mayday ... Ark Royal and President Sarkozy

FRENCH President Nicolas Sarkozy got a volley of warning shots across his bow last night over his potty plan for an EU Navy.

Sarkozy, who takes over the EU presidency next month, wants to put a British aircraft carrier at the core of the new force.

Sailors' song ... for the EU Navy

It would mean either HMS Ark Royal or HMS Illustrious being permanently at sea, directed by Brussels and flying the European flag instead of the White Ensign.

French Defence Minister Herve Morin insists talks with Gordon Brown’s government about creating an EU Navy are “well-advanced”.

Her Majesty’s Royal Navy, or Europe’s? ... Queen inspects

But critics said the idea would make Admiral Nelson, who defeated the French in the Battle of Trafalgar, turn in his grave.

And the great man would tell Sarkozy to get lost using marine signals like those at the top of the page.

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: “The EU’s military ambitions know no bounds.
“The whole concept of sharing naval assets with any other country is nonsense. How is it supposed to work? Do we say, ‘Sorry, it’s our turn to use the carrier?’

Plank

“We should be told whether this madness emanates from Paris or Downing Street.”

The proposal will also disturb the Pentagon as US military leaders are against anything that would endanger the Nato alliance.

Plan ... Sarkozy says talks with Brown are advanced

The idea is a central plank of Sarkozy’s plans for his EU presidency. He favours using British aircraft carriers because France’s single similar ship, the Charles de Gaulle, is decrepit and often in dry dock.

And he does not want to shell out the �2billion it would cost to build another one.

Ark Royal will be phased out in 2012 and Illustrious two years later. But the new British super-carriers – three times larger – are due to come into service in 2016.

The plan would also put 1,000 Navy personnel and some Harrier jump jets and Sea King helicopters at the EU’s beck and call.

A French defence ministry official said other countries, including Germany, “could contribute frigates, submarines or refuelling vessels as required”.

Sarkozy also wants an EU airborne fleet of plane refuellers and transporters, which would make huge demands on the RAF.

Neil O’Brien, of Open Europe think tank, said: “The EU political elite seem to have gone mad. No one in Britain wants to hand over our Navy to corrupt Brussels officials. Gordon Brown must not go along with this.”

The Defence Ministry said last night: “We have no plans to use an aircraft carrier in this way.”

thesun.co.uk

Iran outside and inside

jimmoyer — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:41:17 GMT

Holding out for a hero

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20...781033978/1008

Afshin Molavi

Last Updated: June 12. 2008 9:56PM UAE / June 12. 2008 5:56PM GMT

Blow-up: American hawks and disgruntled Arabs share an inflated sense of Ahmadinejad�s power. AP
�Where are you from, my friend?� the merchant in Sharm Al-Sheikh asks me. I have been in enough bazaars in the Middle East to know the routine: I state my nationality (American), he makes a light joke about Rambo or Hollywood (avoiding politics), and then proceeds to hawk his goods to me at triple the going price.

But this time I took a different tack: �Iranian,� I said, citing my other nationality. �Iran?� the merchant responded, somewhat confused and pleasantly surprised. �Sit down,� he said, and sent his assistant scurrying to get me a cup of tea. �Ahmadi- negadee,� he said in the colloquial Egyptian way of referring to the Iranian president, �is number one. I love him. Very strong. Very good. America and Israel no good. Iran very good.�
This type of talk, too, has become familiar to me. In my travels, from Casablanca to Karachi, I�ve been amazed at the appeal that Iran�s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds on the so-called �street�.

A Cairo driver once refused payment from me in solidarity with �Negadee,� another term used for the Iranian president. A Pakistani driver in Dubai spent nearly an hour with me extolling the virtues of �Ahmadi� as we sat in bumper-to-bumper traffic on Sheikh Zayed Road. A Moroccan student of law asked me if I would use my contacts in Iran to send him an autographed photo of Ahmadinejad (at least he got his name right). And a young, secular Palestinian, in a nightclub in Beirut, showed his love in a manner the conservative Iranian president would likely have frowned upon: he bought a round of shots to toast Ahmadinejad.

I call these distant admirers of Ahmadinejad the Iran Romantics, and I have come to know them well. They are a diverse group, from the perennial grumbling taxi driver to the urbane campus professor. They have a few themes in common: they are frustrated with their own rulers, angry at US and Israeli policies � and most of them have never been to Iran. The latter is the critical point because if they had visited the country, they might be surprised to see that Ahmadinejad is more popular in Amman, Cairo, and Karachi than he is in Tehran, where his policies have stoked record inflation, impoverished Iranians and further isolated the country from the international community.

In Iran, members of parliament slam the Iranian president for his incendiary rhetoric, leading economists write open and angry letters decrying his policies, newspapers regularly criticise him on everything from inflation to his choice of ministers, and senior foreign ministry officials roll their eyes at the president�s antics. Even senior members of Iran�s conservative establishment � including top clerics � have unleashed some not-so-veiled criticism of the Iranian president.

At the time of his election in 2005 � he won the runoff with 60 per cent of the vote �Ahmadinejad was a popular figure in Iran, but not for the reasons the Iran Romantics cite; his appeal rested on populist bread-and-butter issues, and he campaigned on promises to crack down on corruption and restore economic equality. He spoke far more of the price of meat and onions than of Israel or uranium enrichment. Three years into his presidency, the price of meat and onions has soared in concert with his incendiary rhetoric blasting the US and Israel. Meanwhile, the relative freedoms Iranians enjoyed in the Mohammad Khatami era have withered.

So, why the appeal outside of Iran? Partly, it�s easy to like Ahmadinejad. You can enjoy his speeches from afar. They do not affect your life. You do not face the sanctions or the poor policy choices that make life tough for ordinary Iranians, especially the poor. He also talks tough to the United States and Israel, always a winning card in today�s Middle East. Like Latin Americans in the Sixties who revered Fidel Castro from afar but didn�t have to live with his poor management of the state or Arabs who embraced Saddam Hussein but did not have to live with his repression at home, Ahmadinejad maintains a similar appeal.
The Iran Romantics also tend to oppose their own governments, whom they see as too closely allied with the United States, unresponsive to the people�s needs and repressive. A middle-class Egyptian, frustrated with high prices and poor job prospects, and tired of President Hosni Mubarak, might romanticise Ahmadinejad as a leader who at least stands up to the West (though the Egyptian likely pays little attention to Iran�s inflation or unemployment).

But cabdrivers in Cairo and Karachi aren�t the only ones overestimating Ahmadinejad. The Iran Romantics have a counterpart in some Western and Arab capitals, where what you might call �Dark� Iran Romantics hold sway. They see an Iranian plot in every corner of the Middle East, a muscular Iranian military on the brink of nuclear capability about to annihilate Israel, and an Iran on the march with the capability of dominating the region.
The Dark Iran Romantic � including President George W Bush � sees Hamas, Hizbollah and Iraqi militia groups as mere pawns of Iran, and the world divided between moderate Muslims and those extremists aligned with Iran. This view fails to see the local driving forces of groups like Hizbollah, but also fails to see that the poor choices and corrupt practices of some of the so-called moderate Arab states have led their �streets� to embrace a false messiah like Ahmadinejad. It also fails to see that both Israel and the United States have their own history of poor choices that have alienated so many across the region.

The Dark Iran Romantic, too, has likely never visited Iran. If they had, they would see that its vaunted military machine is not as strong as it seems from the images splayed on television, and its population � and many of its top officials � are less interested in revolution, and more in normalisation. Iran�s ageing military equipment gives it a distinct disadvantage in conventional wars; its military might is less real than imagined.
In short, Iran under Ahmadinejad talks loudly and carries a battered stick. It uses that stick to batter its own population, and it makes poor choices that further isolate Iran and stifle its extraordinary potential for growth. There is nothing romantic about that.

To some extent, Ahmadinejad is following a well-trod path. Many an Arab autocrat has sought to deflect attention away from problems at home by pointing the finger abroad. Ironically, the Iranian street might be the least anti-American in the region. The issue of Palestine fails to resonate in Iran the way it does in Arab cities. Iranians don�t watch Al-Jazeera (mostly because they don�t understand Arabic) and, to some extent, they have Palestine fatigue given the amount of attention their government pays to the issue. As one Iranian shopkeeper told me: �Why are we spending so much time and money on Palestine and Hizbollah? What about us Iranians?�

Iran could become a true regional power (rather than a flailing and underperforming one) if it concentrated on channelling its oil wealth into productive development, lowered its rhetoric, engaged more responsibly with its region, and showed a willingness to bury the hatchet with the United States. Though Ahmadinejad may lose the admiration of some of the Iran Romantics in Cairo�s bazaars, he stands to gain something more important: the support of his own people.

Afshin Molavi, the author of The Soul of Iran, has covered Iran and the Middle East for the Washington Post and Reuters.

One of Britain's top soldiers wounded during firefight with Taliban

Blackleaf — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:51:12 GMT

One of the British Army's top soldiers is returning home after being wounded during a battle with the Taliban.

During the battle, the British reclaimed the twon of Musa Qala from the Taliban.

Britain's death toll in Afghanistan is now 102, and this year has so far probably been one of the bloodiest for the British Army since 1982...

One of Britain's top soldiers wounded during firefight with Taliban

By Jody Harrison
14th June 2008
Daily Mail

Evacuated: Lieutenant Colonel David Richmond

One of Britain most senior soldiers is being evacuated from Afghanistan after being shot and wounded during a battle with the Taliban.

Lieutenant Colonel David Richmond, commanding officer of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, suffered a gunshot wound to the leg during an intense firefight with insurgents in Helmand Province.

Lt Col Richmond, 41, was hit by enemy fire near the battlezone town of Musa Qala, which was reclaimed by British forces last December.

He will be flown back to the UK for treatment at the Army�s centre for defence medicine in Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham.

British soldiers fire at the Taliban in Afghanistan

The officer is one of the highest ranking soldiers to be wounded in Afghanistan.

It is believed he was caught up in a firefight on Thursday afternoon as soldiers from the Argylls, the 5th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, conducted operations in the hinterland around Musa Qala.

No details of the incident have been provided by the Ministry of Defence, but the Army has confirmed that Lt Col Richmond was wounded by "enemy action".

Last night, Major Adam Fairrie, of the Argylls, said: "The commanding officer has received the very best medical care following him sustaining a gunshot wound to the leg. He will be returning to Selly Oak in due course.

"His thoughts are very much with the families of the members of the Parachute Regiment who died in other incidents this week and also with his battalion.

"His family ask for their privacy to be respected."

The injury to Lt Col Richmond rounds off a bloody week for British forces in Afghanistan.

On Sunday, the death toll of UK troops reached 100 when three soldiers from
the Parachute regiment � including Dumfries-born David Murray, 19 � died
in a suicide bomb attack.

On Thursday night, Lance Corporal James Bateman, 29, and Private Jeff
Doherty, 20, were killed in a firefight after their patrol was ambushed.

The deaths follow warnings from Brigadier Andrew MacKay, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan before handing over to Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, that troops would face increasing guerrilla attacks as the Taliban react to a series of defeats that have pushed them from the battlefield.

Lt Col Richmond is expected to rejoin his men before their tour of duty ends.

dailymail.co.uk

The Global Constable who's just a pitiful Plod at home...

Blackleaf — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:41:28 GMT

I agree with the war in Afghanistan. However, Peter Hitchens doesn't.

With British deaths in Afghanistan now having reached the 100 mark - and the total death toll is now 102 - Peter Hitchens says the war in Afghanistan is just pointless.

The British Army is probably doing more fighting in Afghanistan than the US Army at the moment, and some countries such as France and Germany just aren't pulling their weight.

The Global Constable who's just a pitiful Plod at home...

14th June 2008
Daily Mail
Peter Hitchens

British soldiers in Afghanistan: The British Army is probably the world's only remaining proper combat army

British soldiers should leave Afghanistan now. No member of the Government has ever explained why they are there. This is because they do not know, and also because they don�t have the courage to admit they have made a foolish mistake.

All the arguments they put forward are false or absurd. It is not about stamping out terrorist bases. Even if we had the troops to do this, such bases might just as easily be in Pakistan, where we cannot send soldiers. Or they could be in West Yorkshire, thanks to our immigration policies, where our vaunted �security� services probably couldn�t find them.

It is not about �defeating the Taliban�. The men we make deals with as tribal elders one week are �the Taliban� a few days later when they ambush our troops.

It is not about �bringing democracy and freedom� to Afghanistan. This noble objective is a joke in a country run by tribal chieftains, whose �elected� President barely has control over his own bedroom, let alone his capital, and certainly not his country.

Private Jeff Doherty and Lance Corporal James Bateman were two of five British soldiers killed in Afghanistan this week

It is not about saving Afghan women from wearing the burka. They still wear the burka, in sight of our troops, and an army of half a million could not free them from it.

Finally, it is pitiful beyond the point of embarrassment that a country which cannot control disorder on its own streets should be posing as a Global Constable in a part of the world from which we have already been violently expelled twice, and where we have no business.

Nobody can fail to be proud of the way our troops have behaved in Helmand. We have, in many ways, the last proper combat army in the world. But that does not justify the 102 deaths we have suffered there, or the many more that will follow as long as we continue this pointless, vainglorious adventure.

They will die to save some-one else�s face. It will be inexcusable.

dailymail.co.uk

Right-wingers really ARE nicer people, latest research shows

Blackleaf — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:28:43 GMT

Latest research shows that Right-wingers - i.e. normap people - are nicer than those Loony, PC, soft, Lefties.....

Don't listen to the liberals - Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows

By Peter Schweizer
14th June 2008
Daily Mail

George Orwell once wrote that politics was closely related to social identity. 'One sometimes gets the impression,' he wrote in The Road To Wigan Pier, 'that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England'.

Orwell was making an observation. But today a whole body of academic research shows he was correct: your politics influence the manner in which you live your life. And the news is not so good for those on the political Left.

There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left.

Come on, you miserable Lefties...

Prove Peter Schweizer wrong and tell us below why Left-wingers are really more lovable. The three best replies will win a bottle of Bollinger champagne and a donation of �100 to the Red Cross appeal to help Burma cyclone victims...

Tory joy: Conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill shows his caring side when meeting a little girl in London in 1950

In my experience, they are also more honest, friendly and well-adjusted.

Much of this springs from the destructive influence of modern liberal ideas.

In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go.

The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being 'true' to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others.

The statistics I base this on come from the General Social Survey, America's premier social research database, but they are just as relevant to the UK, as I believe political belief systems drive one's attitudes, regardless of where you happen to live.

Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?' Of those describing
themselves as 'conservative', 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.

To the question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'.

It's been my experience that conservatives like to talk about things outside of themselves while progressives like to discuss themselves: how they are feeling and what their desires are. That might make for a good therapy session but it's not much fun over a long dinner.

Research also indicates those on the Left are less interested in getting married: 30 per cent of those who were 'very liberal' said it was important, in contrast to 65 per cent of Right-wingers.

The same holds true when the question of having children arises. Progressive American cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have become 'childless liberal boutique' cities, according to Joel Kotkin, an expert on urban development.

While 69 per cent of those who called themselves 'very conservative' said it was important for them to have children, only 38 per cent of corresponding liberals agreed.

Many on the Left proudly proclaim themselves 'child-free'. While some do not want children on ecological grounds, much has to do with the fact that they simply don't want the responsibility of having a child.

When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the Left were nearly twice as likely to say No.

'I'll have babies if you pay for them,' one Leftie blogger said on the social networking website yelp.com.

Billionaire Ted Turner, a self-described socialist, publicly regrets that he had five children. 'If I was doing it over again, I wouldn't have had that many,' he says. 'But I can't shoot them now they're here.'

All of this should not come as a surprise to anyone watching the drift of progressive thinking over the past 40 years.

Starting with British anthropologist Edmund Leach, who said: 'Far from being the basis of a good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all its discontents', feminists, progressives and others have seen the family as an oppressive force.

Feminist Gloria Steinem says on behalf of women: 'The truth is, finding ourselves brings more excitement and wellbeing than anything romance can offer.'

Linda Hirshman tells women not to have more than one baby so they can concentrate on a career. 'Find the money,' she advises. Ah, the important things in life.

Even when they do have children, research carried out at Princeton University shows liberals hug them less than conservatives. My wife thinks they're too busy hugging trees.

Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers.

Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say 'after good health, money is the most important thing', and agree with the statement 'there are no right or wrong ways to make money'.

You don't need to explain that to Doug Urbanski, the former business manager for Left-wing firebrand and documentary-maker Michael Moore. 'He [Moore] is more money-obsessed than anyone I have known - and that's saying a lot,' claims Urbanski.

How is it possible that those who seem to renounce the money culture are more interested in money?

One might suggest those on the Left are simply being more honest when they answer such questions. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this.

Instead, I believe the results have more to do with the powerful appeal of progressive thinking.

Many on the Left apparently believe that espousing liberal ideals is a 'get out of jail free' card that inoculates them from the evils of the money culture.

Cherie Blair, for example, never lets her self-proclaimed socialist attitudes stop her making money. She is even willing to be paid (as she was in Australia) to appear at charity events.

Such progressives, sure that they are not overly interested in money and possessions, believe they are then free to acquire them.

Studies also indicate that those on the Left are less likely to give to charity or to volunteer their time to charity. When they do support charity, it is often less the sort of organisation that helps people and more one that advocates political action.

Uber-progressive Barbra Streisand gives lots of money to charity but the largest recipients are not organisations that feed the hungry - the cash goes to advocacy organisations such as The Bill Clinton Foundation.

Similarly, Michael Moore gives to film festivals and elite cultural institutions such as the Lincoln Center - but barely a penny goes to needy people.

Progressives see economic equality as the highest form of social justice, so they have become obsessed with questions of income inequality.

Can there be any surprise then that those on the Left tend to be more envious and jealous of successful people? That's what studies indicate.

Professor James Lindgren, of Northwestern University in Chicago, found those who favour the redistribution of wealth are more envious than those who do not.

Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour when they conducted an experiment.

Setting up a computer game that allowed people to accumulate money, they gave participants the option to spend some of their own money in order to take away more from someone else.

The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else.

Much of the desire to distribute wealth and higher taxation is motivated by envy - the desire to take more from someone else - and bitterness.

The culprit here is not those on the Left who embrace progressive ideas but the ideas themselves.

As John Maynard Keynes reminds us: 'The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and wrong, are more powerful than commonly understood.

Indeed the world is ruled by little else.' Or, as the American theorist Richard Weaver once declared: 'Ideas have consequences.'

And it seems that today modern progressive ideas can often bring out the worst in people.

� Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His book, Makers And Takers, is published by Doubleday.

dailymail.co.uk

Poll: Many in world look to US election .

china — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:31:04 GMT

Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama is pictured on stage during a campaign rally in Bristow, Virginia, June 5, 2008. [Agencies]

Washington -- People around the globe widely expect the next American president to improve the country's policies toward the rest of the world, especially if Barack Obama is elected, yet they retain a persistently poor image of the US, according to a poll released Thursday. The survey of two dozen countries, conducted this spring by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, also found a growing despondency over the international economy, with majorities in 18 nations calling domestic economic conditions poor. In more bad news for the US, people shared a widespread sense the American economy was hurting their countries, including large majorities in US allies Britain, Germany, Australia, Turkey, France and Japan.
Even six in 10 Americans agreed the US economy was having a negative impact abroad.
Views of the US improved or stayed the same as last year in 18 nations, the first positive signs the poll has found for the US image worldwide this decade. Even so, many improvements were modest and the US remains less popular in most countries than it was before it invaded Iraq in 2003, with majorities in only eight expressing favorable opinions.
Substantial numbers in most countries said they are closely following the US presidential election, including 83 percent in Japan -- about the same proportion who said so in the US. Of those following the campaign, optimism that the new president will reshape American foreign policy for the better is substantial, with the largest segment of people in 14 countries -- including the US -- saying so.
Andrew Kohut, president of Pew, said many seem to be hoping the US role in the world will improve with the departure of President Bush, who remains profoundly unpopular almost everywhere.
"People think the US wants to run the world," said Kohut. "It's not more complicated than that."
Countries most hopeful the new president will improve US policies include France, Spain and Germany, where public opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere has been strong. Strong optimism also came from countries where pique with US policies has been less pronounced, including India, Nigeria, Tanzania and South Africa.
Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have the strongest expectations the next president will worsen US policies, consistent with the skepticism expressed on many issues in the survey by Muslim countries. Japan, Turkey, Russia, South Korea and Mexico had large numbers saying the election would change little.
Among those tracking the American election, greater numbers in 20 countries expressed more confidence in Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, than John McCain, the Republican candidate, to handle world affairs properly. The two contenders were tied in the US, Jordan and Pakistan. Obama's edge was largest in Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Tanzania and Indonesia, where he lived for a time as a child.
The US was the only country where most expressed confidence in McCain. Besides the countries where he and Obama were tied, McCain's smallest gaps against his rival were in India and China, where neither man engenders much confidence.

1 2
1 2

Print This Article E-mail

Comments on the story (total 7)

Top World News

Today's Top News

Most Commented/Read Stories in 48 Hours
Cuba's Robles breaks men's 110m hurdles world record
Findings published on quake fund diversion
Beauty contest in India
College girls go nude before camera for eternal beauty
Straits talks yield full agreement
Nepal leader eager to visit China

Military Expenditure

dancing-loon — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:36:01 GMT

From
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute:

Recent trends in military expenditure

World military expenditure is estimated to have been $1339 billion in 2007�a real-terms increase of 6 per cent over 2006 and of 45 per cent since 1998. This corresponded to 2.5 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP) and $202 for each person in the world.

The USA�s military spending accounted for 45 per cent of the world total in 2007, followed by the UK, China, France and Japan, with 4�5 per cent each. Since 2001 US military expenditure has increased by 59 per cent in real terms, principally because of massive spending on military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also because of increases in the �base� defence budget. By 2007, US spending was higher than at any time since World War II. However, because of the growth of the US economy and of total US Government spending, the economic and financial burden of military spending (i.e. its share of GDP and of total US Government outlays) is lower now than during previous peak spending years in the post-World War II period.

China has increased its military spending threefold in real terms during the past decade. However, due to its rapid economic growth, the economic burden of military spending is still moderate, at 2.1 per cent of GDP.

Military spending is rising rapidly in the South Caucasus�Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia�largely due to the region�s three �frozen� conflicts and the involvement of external actors. The rises have been made possible by economic upswings largely based on oil and gas revenues.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/...ex_trends.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to show how militarized our world actually is, and find that it is not as bad as I expected. At least Canada is not in the forefront...yet!!

Clicking on this link will get you to much more info on all kinds of related and specific topics.

US "attacks" Pakistan

dancing-loon — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:50:37 GMT

Pakistan fury over U.S. 'hot pursuit' attack

Pakistan summoned the U.S. ambassador Wednesday to protest a U.S. airstrike that it says killed 11, and wounded another seven of its forces who were cooperating with the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

"The United States regrets that actions in Mohmand Agency the night of June 10 resulted in the reported casualties among Pakistani forces, who are our partners in the fight against terrorism," the embassy in Islamabad said in a statement after the meeting. "We express our condolences to the families of those who lost their lives."
The official said Pakistani military officials worked with U.S. forces to track the militants as they fled across the border into Pakistan. He said the mission was permitted under the rules of engagement, which allow "hot pursuit" across the border of suspected militants when locations are verified.
But Pakistan's military -- which described the airstrike as a "completely unprovoked and cowardly act" -- had a much different account of what happened.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/as...iref=hpmostpop

---------------------------------------------------------------
That could cool relations between the two countries which have never been that hot anyway.

Respect the Olympic torch -Dali Lama

china — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:04:50 GMT

Respect the Olympic torch, Dalai Lama says Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama Thursday voiced optimism about future talks with China and called for calm and respect for the Olympic torch when it travels through Tibet next...

Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores

Scott Free — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:24:02 GMT

METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.
In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.
Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.
Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''

- Source

I know someone who couldn't become an RCMP officer because his IQ was too high.

And we wonder why there is so much corruption in government. "Have the RCMP investigate the allegations of wrong doing," they say. :roll:

What is the point when the police aren't even capable of understanding the crime? 8O

The Life of Brian, US in terminal decline

dumpthemonarchy — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:44:51 GMT

The US is in terminal decline for two resons

1. The US cannot laugh at itself due to its earnestness and religion. Saw the movie The
Life of Brian on video. Fantastic spoof of religion and politics. Hollywood couldn't make
a movie like this if they tried. Would be attacked and censored. Not that anyone in the
US would ever think of making a movie satirizing religion that bites. All prez candidates
talk about how religious they are. In Washington DC, in one of the museums, Abraham is
called a great lawmaker.

2. American just don't know history. Fareed Zakaria, international editor of Newsweek,
wrote in Foreign Affairs May/June 2008 issue, an article titled, "The Future of American
Power" that "The eleven premiers of Britain's self-governing colonies were in
attendance," Premiers? They were prime minsters. See below. Comic.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page929.asp

Eleven colonial Prime Ministers were in attendance. The Queen's progress continued via the Mansion House across London Bridge and through South London, before returning over Westminster Bridge, past the Houses of Parliament to Buckingham Palace.

Basically, Americans are just clued out about other countries. Nice people but just can't get a grip on what's going on beyond their borders. Here, it is in the American mentality that only Britain has a prime minister, whether it is the present or the British empire. Words matter, but they can only relate to words in an American context, not an international one.

An article just after said the US was not that strong due to so many international actors such as NGOs. It used my favourite word these days, entropy. Which means disorder, random chaos. Put yer seat belts on.

Russia : Ukraine at odds over 350-year battle

dancing-loon — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:32:53 GMT

Russia and Ukraine clash over 350-year-old battle

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A 350-year-old cavalry battle has become the latest irritant between Russia and its neighbour Ukraine after Russia's foreign ministry on Tuesday accused Kiev of using the clash to foment anti-Russian feeling.

The ministry said the 1659 battle of Konotop, in which a Russian invasion was repelled, was being distorted to fit the political agenda of Ukraine's leaders, who have angered Moscow by seeking NATO membership.

In the battle, a Russian force was defeated when it tried to stop a Ukrainian leader from entering into an entente with Poland and Lithuania -- with whom Russia had waged wars.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has ordered officials to mark the Battle of Konotop's 350th anniversary in 2009 with a series of events starting this year.

"We feel perplexity and regret at the persistence ... with which certain forces in Ukraine are today trying to find ... events and people notable only for the fact that they were in some way directed against Moscow," a ministry statement said.
"Playing with history, especially with nationalistic overtones, never leads to anywhere good."
"In these conditions one must count on the wisdom of the Ukrainian people, who will not let themselves be drawn into an artificial, invented confrontation with Russia."

Russia, which effectively ruled Ukraine from the mid-17th century with varying degrees of autonomy to the end of Soviet rule in 1991, has traditionally viewed the country as part of its sphere of influence.

There is more rubble on page two at this link: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldN...33999420080610
-------------------------------------------------
This reminds me of present China, trying to stop Tibet from independence. Lucky for the Ukraines to have achieved to loosen themselves from Russia, but just barely. Yushenko almost paid with his life for it!

Isn't it some kind of pride of achievement for any country to celebrate major victories? Why not Ukraine?