Lung Cancer Detector
by gd4u2no
The Cleveland Clinic has found that lung cancer is detected by dogs with a 99% accuracy. However, it is unsettling to realize that the smarter species has not made great strides in becoming as accurate in diagnosing this particular disease. It is an undeniable truth according to the experts in the medical field.
Researchers have developed a new method of detecting lung cancer by utilizing a sensor. It would be similiar to be a breath analyzer. There are organic compounds which lung cancer patients exhale. Experts in the medical profession can use gas chromotograher to similate the organic compounds of cancer. Though, there seems to be an inadequate diagnosis rate which does not allow the use of the gas chromotographer to become an effective method.
Lung cancer causes 160,000 deaths a year in the United States. This cancer is hard to detect in its early stages. In its latter stages, it is hard to be mutually beneficial with the current treatments available. Development of a sensor which would allow faster diagnosis of the most prevalent cancer in the United States would be a great help to the people of America. What is absolutely amazing is denial of the most accurate form of diagnosis currently available. Why not invest the money in training people to work with the dogs? Since this method has a 99% accuracy in diagnosing cancer, why not save the people?
What could possibly be wrong with the current solution which God has already given? Oh!! I think I have an inkling of what makes this an implausible act. There is not enough money to be made off of people in need of life. Does anyone think this may have a bit to do with it?
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Iran earns Respect
Iran is Entitled
by gd4u2no
Is it not amazing the insight that it took Mr. Blix,a former U.N. chief weapons inspector, to present the world with a proper picture of what is happpening? I think he states his point well. Perhaps, I may disagree with his analogy to a child, but the essence of his conclusion is correct.
No one should expect any leader to be omitted from conversation. Yet, that same leader should be given and accept directives from the very person who deems them unworthy of conversation.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush and his representatives have consistently stated he will not enter any direct discussions with Iran for the past few years. Let us accept that Iran was willing to have discussions with the United States to no avail.
Once a barrier is erected, there is no threshold to stand upon and give orders. Especially, considering North Korea was given much room to advance their nuclear programs. Basically, enough time elapsed with denial of stopping their nuclear campaign and initating tests of their weapons for the world to see.
After North Korea demonstrated what they stated, the international community determines they should be well-compensated to stop. Absolutely amazing is all I can say.
Which picture is more of a threat? I guess, the one which is paid the most. This train of thought gives more incentives for other countries to stand by their convictions. Let us not forget Iran chooses to have electricity for their countrymen.
Who has the right to dictate how you run your own house? Who has a great claim in entering your house and stating what you can and can not do within your own sanctuary? Especially, when you consider your family's quality of life becoming improved.
by gd4u2no
Is it not amazing the insight that it took Mr. Blix,a former U.N. chief weapons inspector, to present the world with a proper picture of what is happpening? I think he states his point well. Perhaps, I may disagree with his analogy to a child, but the essence of his conclusion is correct.
No one should expect any leader to be omitted from conversation. Yet, that same leader should be given and accept directives from the very person who deems them unworthy of conversation.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush and his representatives have consistently stated he will not enter any direct discussions with Iran for the past few years. Let us accept that Iran was willing to have discussions with the United States to no avail.
Once a barrier is erected, there is no threshold to stand upon and give orders. Especially, considering North Korea was given much room to advance their nuclear programs. Basically, enough time elapsed with denial of stopping their nuclear campaign and initating tests of their weapons for the world to see.
After North Korea demonstrated what they stated, the international community determines they should be well-compensated to stop. Absolutely amazing is all I can say.
Which picture is more of a threat? I guess, the one which is paid the most. This train of thought gives more incentives for other countries to stand by their convictions. Let us not forget Iran chooses to have electricity for their countrymen.
Who has the right to dictate how you run your own house? Who has a great claim in entering your house and stating what you can and can not do within your own sanctuary? Especially, when you consider your family's quality of life becoming improved.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Energy Savers Use Mercury
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Present Dangers
by gd4u2no
The Environmental Protection Agency, along with some retailers, are encouraging consumers to buy compact fluorescent bulbs. The bulbs appear to have swirls on top. These bulbs are useful in conserving energy.
A lesser known fact it is the bulbs contain mercury. Mercury is a toxin which affects the nervous system. Ordinarily, disposal of mercury and environmental releases of mercury are regulated by the EPA.
The compact bulbs do not present a problem with proper disposal. The mercury does not present any concerns unless there are massive amounts of bulbs broken within a limited area, such as a landfill for regular waste. When this happens, the workers and landfill risk unhealthy levels of toxins.
Should the EPA inform the public of proper removal for a better environment? Absolutely. Most people are unaware of the need to keep the bulbs out of the regular garbage containers. These compact bulbs actually need to be taken to a hazardous waste center.
The EPA has been urging Walmart to help with recycling these compact bulbs. GE has been making these bulbs for 20 years. While the EPA has seen sales increase, they are trying to get corporate America to assist with removal of this looming threat.
While the EPA has been somewhat constructive, I believe the American people can find their way to hazardous waste facilities to ensure safe conditions for other Americans who remove their garbage. I believe Americans do not want a ladder for every step they take. We can consider the dangers and evaluate the next step to be taken for the improvement of our neighborhood and cities. No one pays the cost better than us.
by gd4u2no
The Environmental Protection Agency, along with some retailers, are encouraging consumers to buy compact fluorescent bulbs. The bulbs appear to have swirls on top. These bulbs are useful in conserving energy.
A lesser known fact it is the bulbs contain mercury. Mercury is a toxin which affects the nervous system. Ordinarily, disposal of mercury and environmental releases of mercury are regulated by the EPA.
The compact bulbs do not present a problem with proper disposal. The mercury does not present any concerns unless there are massive amounts of bulbs broken within a limited area, such as a landfill for regular waste. When this happens, the workers and landfill risk unhealthy levels of toxins.
Should the EPA inform the public of proper removal for a better environment? Absolutely. Most people are unaware of the need to keep the bulbs out of the regular garbage containers. These compact bulbs actually need to be taken to a hazardous waste center.
The EPA has been urging Walmart to help with recycling these compact bulbs. GE has been making these bulbs for 20 years. While the EPA has seen sales increase, they are trying to get corporate America to assist with removal of this looming threat.
While the EPA has been somewhat constructive, I believe the American people can find their way to hazardous waste facilities to ensure safe conditions for other Americans who remove their garbage. I believe Americans do not want a ladder for every step they take. We can consider the dangers and evaluate the next step to be taken for the improvement of our neighborhood and cities. No one pays the cost better than us.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Hole opens in Guatemala neighborhood, 3 missing
Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:56pm ET
GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) - Three people were missing on Friday after a 200-foot-deep hole opened up in the middle of a Guatemalan neighborhood, likely due to a burst sewer pipe.
"It sounded like a bomb was dropping. Boom!" said Carlos Gutierrez, 58, of the crater, which measured 130 feet in diameter.
The crater appeared in the capital's San Antonio neighborhood on Thursday night. Authorities evacuated hundreds of people on Friday fearing more land could collapse into a fast-flowing river of sewage below.
The missing people had lived in a house that fell into the hole. Two bodies showed up about a mile downstream.
Neighbors said the ground had been shaking for weeks after a huge sewer pipe burst, making the ground underneath the houses unstable.
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved
It is unbelievable that any disaster such as this can happen without an earthquake. Possibly, this concern can be addressed to the effect that no occurrence of this type may happen again.
Thankfully, nothing of that nature has happened here in the continental United States. How is it possible to happen within a United States territory is unthinkable? Let us hope that better planning is considered as a result. Let me know what you think
Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:56pm ET
GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) - Three people were missing on Friday after a 200-foot-deep hole opened up in the middle of a Guatemalan neighborhood, likely due to a burst sewer pipe.
"It sounded like a bomb was dropping. Boom!" said Carlos Gutierrez, 58, of the crater, which measured 130 feet in diameter.
The crater appeared in the capital's San Antonio neighborhood on Thursday night. Authorities evacuated hundreds of people on Friday fearing more land could collapse into a fast-flowing river of sewage below.
The missing people had lived in a house that fell into the hole. Two bodies showed up about a mile downstream.
Neighbors said the ground had been shaking for weeks after a huge sewer pipe burst, making the ground underneath the houses unstable.
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved
It is unbelievable that any disaster such as this can happen without an earthquake. Possibly, this concern can be addressed to the effect that no occurrence of this type may happen again.
Thankfully, nothing of that nature has happened here in the continental United States. How is it possible to happen within a United States territory is unthinkable? Let us hope that better planning is considered as a result. Let me know what you think
Phoenix Strips Clothing
Homeland Security Rises
by gd4u2no
Technology has made wonderful advances within the past decade. This year starts with a startling discovery which would eliminate the need for physical contact checks at airports.. There is a new x-ray machine which has the capability of providing an image of anything under clothing.
However, the privacy of passengers have been considered. The security scanner would be used to reinforce the primary scanner presently used. Also, passengers may opt for the traditional pat down. While in the pilot phase, it is certain this technology will only be used on a voluntary basis.
What makes this a remarkable discovery is simple. The techology used is called "backscatter". It allows security to determine whether someone has a weapon by imaging. The image shown would be the person minus the clothing. This, by itself, would allow TSA officers to determine if a weapon or any other danger is associated with the individual scanned. The security officer viewing the image would be 50 feet from where the the images are gained. The Transportation Security Administration would be using this equipment in airports.
Actually, the pilot security scanner debuted in Phoenix at the Sky Harbor International Airport. This pilot program will last for approximately 90 days before any other city is implemented with the security scanner. If this venture proves successful and safe. New York and Los Angeles are projected to be the next recipients of this particular technology.
by gd4u2no
Technology has made wonderful advances within the past decade. This year starts with a startling discovery which would eliminate the need for physical contact checks at airports.. There is a new x-ray machine which has the capability of providing an image of anything under clothing.
However, the privacy of passengers have been considered. The security scanner would be used to reinforce the primary scanner presently used. Also, passengers may opt for the traditional pat down. While in the pilot phase, it is certain this technology will only be used on a voluntary basis.
What makes this a remarkable discovery is simple. The techology used is called "backscatter". It allows security to determine whether someone has a weapon by imaging. The image shown would be the person minus the clothing. This, by itself, would allow TSA officers to determine if a weapon or any other danger is associated with the individual scanned. The security officer viewing the image would be 50 feet from where the the images are gained. The Transportation Security Administration would be using this equipment in airports.
Actually, the pilot security scanner debuted in Phoenix at the Sky Harbor International Airport. This pilot program will last for approximately 90 days before any other city is implemented with the security scanner. If this venture proves successful and safe. New York and Los Angeles are projected to be the next recipients of this particular technology.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Are Sanctions Necessary for Iran?
Iran "Needs" Sanctions
by gd4u2no
Iran is developing nuclear weapons say the powers of the West. This situation was predicted four years ago. How is Iran a country which should be dealt with immediately? They are producing uranium enrichment below 5%. There is a 90% uranium enrichment level necessary in order to become a threat. In other words, Iran has not become a threat by producing levels of uranium below a 20% threshold. Help me to understand the dire need for action and retribution of WHAT.
Now, what makes a third world country? Regardless of what another country should imagine, what country should not be allowed to prosper and grow as a nation?!
How is it possible that one country should make it a mandate that another country should not be allowed to seek electricity in the same manner as the most elite countries of the world? What particular part of the world is given the right to deny another country the right for self-improvement cast with judgement?
'The Nuclear Watchdog agency itself denies that Iran has the ability nor capacity to become a nuclear threat. Why can we not watch and allow the opportunity for Iran to develop itself for the good of its own citizens? How can we state that other countries need us while stating they are not to help themselves? What kind of political power states you are nothing while threatening you for trying to become something? This type of logic escapes my train of thought as being sensible. It kind fits the story of why give you fish when I can teach you how to fish?
In my way of thinking, Iran has every right to pursue a better life for its citizens regardless of any other country. Should we not feel the same about our own country? Who should decide if we improve this great United States but the American people? Sometimes, problems appear and sometimes problems are created with intent.
How would you solve this situation for the improvement of the world? Also, is there anything broken which should be addressed at this time? Let me know what you think.
by gd4u2no
Iran is developing nuclear weapons say the powers of the West. This situation was predicted four years ago. How is Iran a country which should be dealt with immediately? They are producing uranium enrichment below 5%. There is a 90% uranium enrichment level necessary in order to become a threat. In other words, Iran has not become a threat by producing levels of uranium below a 20% threshold. Help me to understand the dire need for action and retribution of WHAT.
Now, what makes a third world country? Regardless of what another country should imagine, what country should not be allowed to prosper and grow as a nation?!
How is it possible that one country should make it a mandate that another country should not be allowed to seek electricity in the same manner as the most elite countries of the world? What particular part of the world is given the right to deny another country the right for self-improvement cast with judgement?
'The Nuclear Watchdog agency itself denies that Iran has the ability nor capacity to become a nuclear threat. Why can we not watch and allow the opportunity for Iran to develop itself for the good of its own citizens? How can we state that other countries need us while stating they are not to help themselves? What kind of political power states you are nothing while threatening you for trying to become something? This type of logic escapes my train of thought as being sensible. It kind fits the story of why give you fish when I can teach you how to fish?
In my way of thinking, Iran has every right to pursue a better life for its citizens regardless of any other country. Should we not feel the same about our own country? Who should decide if we improve this great United States but the American people? Sometimes, problems appear and sometimes problems are created with intent.
How would you solve this situation for the improvement of the world? Also, is there anything broken which should be addressed at this time? Let me know what you think.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Poland investigated for torture chambers
Poland provides U.S. security
by gd4u2no
Most likely, the United States administration currently in office has not found torture a deplorable act. Though, the United States and Poland will not cooperate with the investigative inquiry . This investigation was initiated by the European Union. The purpose of this inquiry regards the torture of detainees, the report has been issued.
The United States has been found guilty of using methods of torture while Romania and Poland host the sites for these illegal activities. Is it possible this is what was meant by collective defense?
The United States commander-in-chief has certainly denied any activity of this sort. We all know Mr. Bush is the most honorable and trustworthy gentleman of our great United States.
In the face of terrorism and other new threats, NATO's traditional commitment to collective defense must also be carried out in new ways. In the face of adversity, it would seem that all things are possible in the face of war. This is not a new concept by any means.
The objections seems to protrude from the fact of denial. It is understandable of what acts war requires. The unthinkable may happen. The challenge of perpetuating the rules of leadership remains somewhat different. No one is above their own strongly advocated laws. This particular brand of leadership is then laced with hypocrisy. What shall become of the people that choose to be represented by such an advocate?
One aspect is not debatable. It is debatable of his conviction nor determination. Should the strength of conviction by any one person manifest itself as an overall admirable quality? I believe in any situation, of good intent, leadership should have a few good qualities for the good of the people to be served. If the people are not served, how can leadership exist? This would seem to be a grand concoction for a dictatorship.
Given that particular recipe, it is not surprising when relations are forged upon the same principle which overwhelms all other qualities. Why would Poland not find a good purpose in providing the United States missile defense a good project? Of course, favorable stipulations exist to make this a smooth transition for the Polish people who find this an uninspiring task.
Maybe, it is a relationship with good promise with collusions for all the negative purposes which may allow a bright shining light to be seen. WE can only hope and pray for this ending.
by gd4u2no
Most likely, the United States administration currently in office has not found torture a deplorable act. Though, the United States and Poland will not cooperate with the investigative inquiry . This investigation was initiated by the European Union. The purpose of this inquiry regards the torture of detainees, the report has been issued.
The United States has been found guilty of using methods of torture while Romania and Poland host the sites for these illegal activities. Is it possible this is what was meant by collective defense?
The United States commander-in-chief has certainly denied any activity of this sort. We all know Mr. Bush is the most honorable and trustworthy gentleman of our great United States.
In the face of terrorism and other new threats, NATO's traditional commitment to collective defense must also be carried out in new ways. In the face of adversity, it would seem that all things are possible in the face of war. This is not a new concept by any means.
The objections seems to protrude from the fact of denial. It is understandable of what acts war requires. The unthinkable may happen. The challenge of perpetuating the rules of leadership remains somewhat different. No one is above their own strongly advocated laws. This particular brand of leadership is then laced with hypocrisy. What shall become of the people that choose to be represented by such an advocate?
One aspect is not debatable. It is debatable of his conviction nor determination. Should the strength of conviction by any one person manifest itself as an overall admirable quality? I believe in any situation, of good intent, leadership should have a few good qualities for the good of the people to be served. If the people are not served, how can leadership exist? This would seem to be a grand concoction for a dictatorship.
Given that particular recipe, it is not surprising when relations are forged upon the same principle which overwhelms all other qualities. Why would Poland not find a good purpose in providing the United States missile defense a good project? Of course, favorable stipulations exist to make this a smooth transition for the Polish people who find this an uninspiring task.
Maybe, it is a relationship with good promise with collusions for all the negative purposes which may allow a bright shining light to be seen. WE can only hope and pray for this ending.
Jeopardy for Healthcare of Children
Healthcare of American Children at Risk
by gd4u2no
Children are the most innocent people of this world. Why should children have to suffer by lack of health insurance?
Hopefully, the federal government will not overburden the states with the full cost of their medical bills.
Perhaps, mismanagement is responsible for causing such an excessive amount of healthcare expenses for some states. Though it may irresponsible to have excessive amounts which do not pertain to children under the umbrella of the children's healthcare coverage, accountability would better serve each state goverment in removing this dilemma from recurring. Therefore, the children would still be covered with continuity.
Children should not have to suffer due to mismanagement of funds. Their responsibility does not adequately cover themselves. With that being the case, how they can be punished? Better yet, why should they be punished for the mistakes of adults? Should children become liable for the inaccurate distribution of healthcare for adults? Hmmm.
Perhaps, the federal government may be guided to make state government more acountable in the distribution of healthcare. It seems that it is becoming a predicament anyways. Healthcare overall seems to be moving towards a complete overhaul.
Should we forget or neglect our children in order that the rest of the world may benefit from our wonderful dollar value? How can our children be at risk of becoming uninsured with many other options seem to be funded with American dollars?
by gd4u2no
Children are the most innocent people of this world. Why should children have to suffer by lack of health insurance?
Hopefully, the federal government will not overburden the states with the full cost of their medical bills.
Perhaps, mismanagement is responsible for causing such an excessive amount of healthcare expenses for some states. Though it may irresponsible to have excessive amounts which do not pertain to children under the umbrella of the children's healthcare coverage, accountability would better serve each state goverment in removing this dilemma from recurring. Therefore, the children would still be covered with continuity.
Children should not have to suffer due to mismanagement of funds. Their responsibility does not adequately cover themselves. With that being the case, how they can be punished? Better yet, why should they be punished for the mistakes of adults? Should children become liable for the inaccurate distribution of healthcare for adults? Hmmm.
Perhaps, the federal government may be guided to make state government more acountable in the distribution of healthcare. It seems that it is becoming a predicament anyways. Healthcare overall seems to be moving towards a complete overhaul.
Should we forget or neglect our children in order that the rest of the world may benefit from our wonderful dollar value? How can our children be at risk of becoming uninsured with many other options seem to be funded with American dollars?
Corporations steal from U.S. workers
Mexico's booming economy
by gd4usno
How is it possible that the American people are unable to maintain border control? Actually, let us hope this event will be reciprocated.
The American people are becoming more desolate regarding factory jobs. Middle class Americans are becoming less of a majority. This gives cause for concern. Many have noticed that while America is still a power, the power has to be continued in order to remain a force in the world. This thought process is slowly eroding in a few ways.
Why should the Mexican border become a problem? Our jobs are moving there at such a fast speed that Americans may soon cross the border to find an income which allows an affordable living wage. We may exchange places with our Mexican neighbors soon. We may start to cross the border to work there and send the money home to our families. Should this become a necessary option, what would it mean for the rest of America? How would it affect the country overall? This is definitely food for thought.
Although, the corporations of America have not conducted themselves as if this is a thought which concerns them. It may affect the quality of life which would then manifest itself throughout our beautiful land of the free.
Maybe government will implement new legislation which would ensure that American lifestyles are not at a decline with such an outlook becoming a possiblity. Hopefully, this plan will be implemented for all of America's sake.
by gd4usno
How is it possible that the American people are unable to maintain border control? Actually, let us hope this event will be reciprocated.
The American people are becoming more desolate regarding factory jobs. Middle class Americans are becoming less of a majority. This gives cause for concern. Many have noticed that while America is still a power, the power has to be continued in order to remain a force in the world. This thought process is slowly eroding in a few ways.
Why should the Mexican border become a problem? Our jobs are moving there at such a fast speed that Americans may soon cross the border to find an income which allows an affordable living wage. We may exchange places with our Mexican neighbors soon. We may start to cross the border to work there and send the money home to our families. Should this become a necessary option, what would it mean for the rest of America? How would it affect the country overall? This is definitely food for thought.
Although, the corporations of America have not conducted themselves as if this is a thought which concerns them. It may affect the quality of life which would then manifest itself throughout our beautiful land of the free.
Maybe government will implement new legislation which would ensure that American lifestyles are not at a decline with such an outlook becoming a possiblity. Hopefully, this plan will be implemented for all of America's sake.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Bush helps Korea
United States pays North Korea for bribes
by gd4u2no
How is it possible for us to pay a communist country for "promising" to stop producing additional nuclear weapons? Is this bribery being sponsored by the same "United" States which is behaving as if it would start a war with Iran? Iran is the country located near our victorious Iraq, of course.
How is it possible to pay the country which kindly informed us of what would happen 3 years ago? Am I missing something out of this victorious gesture of sponsorship of the great Korean nation?
It is quite a generous offer on the behalf of the great United States. I would like to threaten and throw punches at someone. Then, turn around to throw some more and they buy me a Mercedes. Nothing personal, but it makes just as much sense. Oh, I forgot one part. The little kid across the street would be mauled by my children. Of course, I would have to leave my senses for this to become a practical and conscientous solution to both of these particular dilemmas. Just to add quite a bit flavor, I would brag about the bad guy with lots of money who sought to pay me from beating him. Heck, why not beat him everyday?
Now, in all actuality, would this not endear me to all the other big, bad guys in the neighborhood? Of course, this is truly discounting the small fish who would suddenly find me appealing to prove their bravado.
Being that this is a skit, a skit seen on international television none of this needs to be bragged about at all. It is shown for what it is.
by gd4u2no
How is it possible for us to pay a communist country for "promising" to stop producing additional nuclear weapons? Is this bribery being sponsored by the same "United" States which is behaving as if it would start a war with Iran? Iran is the country located near our victorious Iraq, of course.
How is it possible to pay the country which kindly informed us of what would happen 3 years ago? Am I missing something out of this victorious gesture of sponsorship of the great Korean nation?
It is quite a generous offer on the behalf of the great United States. I would like to threaten and throw punches at someone. Then, turn around to throw some more and they buy me a Mercedes. Nothing personal, but it makes just as much sense. Oh, I forgot one part. The little kid across the street would be mauled by my children. Of course, I would have to leave my senses for this to become a practical and conscientous solution to both of these particular dilemmas. Just to add quite a bit flavor, I would brag about the bad guy with lots of money who sought to pay me from beating him. Heck, why not beat him everyday?
Now, in all actuality, would this not endear me to all the other big, bad guys in the neighborhood? Of course, this is truly discounting the small fish who would suddenly find me appealing to prove their bravado.
Being that this is a skit, a skit seen on international television none of this needs to be bragged about at all. It is shown for what it is.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Government Dares "Us" to Care
The Effects of Global Warming
By Tonya G.
How can the American people hope for help from its own government after Katrina? Is it possible that the actions of the government instilled confidence? With that being said, how can we hope that the government will take better actions? However, I must be fair and state that Mr. George Bush did seem partial to Gov. Bush's constituents.
However, the problem still remains. George Bush refuses to acknowledge America's contributions to global warming. Now, unless I am mistaken, this type of behavior is what allows your electricity to be disconnected. By not addressing the issue is not in nor of itself a resolution to anything. It will mean that you can disconnect yourself from the world in the same way the power company will disconnect your appliances from usage.
The declarations from scientists around the world are steadily stipulating that natural disasters will become even worse. Ok. Lets see. America was not ready for the disaster of Katrina. The tsunami was not something anyone had time to prepare for. This should definitely lead our leaders to say....hmmm. Switzerland has opted for using less petrol and highter taxes to implement their contribution to lessening pollution. The developed nations of the world are the biggest contributors of this upcoming disaster. When will everyone raise their voice in order to provide somewhat of a good life for children and grandchildren, not to mention all other future generations. What shall we leave them?
By Tonya G.
How can the American people hope for help from its own government after Katrina? Is it possible that the actions of the government instilled confidence? With that being said, how can we hope that the government will take better actions? However, I must be fair and state that Mr. George Bush did seem partial to Gov. Bush's constituents.
However, the problem still remains. George Bush refuses to acknowledge America's contributions to global warming. Now, unless I am mistaken, this type of behavior is what allows your electricity to be disconnected. By not addressing the issue is not in nor of itself a resolution to anything. It will mean that you can disconnect yourself from the world in the same way the power company will disconnect your appliances from usage.
The declarations from scientists around the world are steadily stipulating that natural disasters will become even worse. Ok. Lets see. America was not ready for the disaster of Katrina. The tsunami was not something anyone had time to prepare for. This should definitely lead our leaders to say....hmmm. Switzerland has opted for using less petrol and highter taxes to implement their contribution to lessening pollution. The developed nations of the world are the biggest contributors of this upcoming disaster. When will everyone raise their voice in order to provide somewhat of a good life for children and grandchildren, not to mention all other future generations. What shall we leave them?
Universal Healthcare for Americans
Universal Health Care of Americans
by Tonya G.
There seems to be appropriate consideration of the people of America by corporations. Most of America has been under the illusion that the American government would have consideration of implementing healthcare coverage. Is it surprising that Walmart would be the company to initiate this benefit for the American public?! Actually, what is incredible to believe is the $245 billion which has been delivered overseas while the American people remain uninsured. I guess, this is definitely a way to relieve social security of having many numerous payouts!!
Walmart, Intel, AT and T, and Kelly Services all plan a meeting in May. They hope to gain additional support from other corporations along with government agencies. Non-profit agencies are also welcome to gain insight for providing national health insurance coverage. Now, this seems rather overdue and well-appreciated. Let us see where this takes the people of the United States.
Hopefully, some type of agreeement which is favorable for the people of America in gaining medical care and coverage for the millions which are uninsured at this time. I might add it would be nice to know that there will be an attainable price associated with whatever resolution is found at the summit meeting.
All said and done. It is still a wonderful thought for Walmart to even attempt to initiate for us. It is a gesture which will have firm resolutions in the best interests of all. My only objection would be to question how this can be done in an effective manner which had not been done.
by Tonya G.
There seems to be appropriate consideration of the people of America by corporations. Most of America has been under the illusion that the American government would have consideration of implementing healthcare coverage. Is it surprising that Walmart would be the company to initiate this benefit for the American public?! Actually, what is incredible to believe is the $245 billion which has been delivered overseas while the American people remain uninsured. I guess, this is definitely a way to relieve social security of having many numerous payouts!!
Walmart, Intel, AT and T, and Kelly Services all plan a meeting in May. They hope to gain additional support from other corporations along with government agencies. Non-profit agencies are also welcome to gain insight for providing national health insurance coverage. Now, this seems rather overdue and well-appreciated. Let us see where this takes the people of the United States.
Hopefully, some type of agreeement which is favorable for the people of America in gaining medical care and coverage for the millions which are uninsured at this time. I might add it would be nice to know that there will be an attainable price associated with whatever resolution is found at the summit meeting.
All said and done. It is still a wonderful thought for Walmart to even attempt to initiate for us. It is a gesture which will have firm resolutions in the best interests of all. My only objection would be to question how this can be done in an effective manner which had not been done.
Arabic International Communities Next?
Found in Translation
Meadan is offering Arabic-English machine translation to create a virtual town square during troubled times.
By Shereen El Feki
September 11 affected millions of people in myriad ways. For Ed Bice, an American ex-architect, it sparked a desire to get ordinary Middle Easterners--and Westerners--talking together. Naturally, being based in the Bay Area, he turned to the Web for help.
The result, six years later, is Meadan, which means "town square" in Arabic. The basic idea is simple: it's a website that brings English and Arabic speakers together around daily postings of news articles, broadcasts, and events that are of common interest, and it gives users a platform to communicate through dialogues, blogs, and other exchanges. All the while, it allows users to pinpoint their location so that people can share views across continents.
The hard part is creating a system that allows users to express their ideas in their native tongue. Enter IBM. The company has one of the most advanced systems for Arabic-English machine translation. It's 84 percent accurate and can transmute Arabic to English and back again at a blistering 500 words per second.
This is no easy task, says Salim Roukos, a senior manager for multilingual natural-language processing technologies at IBM's Watson Research Center. Because word order in Arabic sentences differs from word order in English, verbs can get lost--quite literally--in machine translation. Moreover, Arabic words have prefixes, suffixes, and other forms that allow them to agree in gender and number--a rigor that freewheeling English lacks and that makes translation from English to Arabic even trickier.
IBM's statistically based translation system has been trained on a massive amount of material, called a parallel corpus, in both modern standard Arabic and formal English--the language of news reports. But the system struggles with slang and other colloquialisms--all the more difficult in Arabic because street talk varies from country to country.
But this is exactly the sort of language that Meadan's online community will use. So the alpha test, which was launched last month, also calls on the services of human translators to correct IBM's machine translations. There is plenty of work to be done. Even a basic English expression like "That's great!" comes out of the machine as the equivalent of "That's big!" in Arabic. It's up to users to point this out and up to designated translators to fix it. The correct pair of translations then becomes another piece of data from which the machine can learn.
Meadan hopes to roll out a beta version later this year--provided it raises the money it needs to move forward. Bice has high hopes. "A year from now, I hope we are a global social network, talking across languages about events in the world." Insha'allah, as we say in Arabic.
Meadan is offering Arabic-English machine translation to create a virtual town square during troubled times.
By Shereen El Feki
September 11 affected millions of people in myriad ways. For Ed Bice, an American ex-architect, it sparked a desire to get ordinary Middle Easterners--and Westerners--talking together. Naturally, being based in the Bay Area, he turned to the Web for help.
The result, six years later, is Meadan, which means "town square" in Arabic. The basic idea is simple: it's a website that brings English and Arabic speakers together around daily postings of news articles, broadcasts, and events that are of common interest, and it gives users a platform to communicate through dialogues, blogs, and other exchanges. All the while, it allows users to pinpoint their location so that people can share views across continents.
The hard part is creating a system that allows users to express their ideas in their native tongue. Enter IBM. The company has one of the most advanced systems for Arabic-English machine translation. It's 84 percent accurate and can transmute Arabic to English and back again at a blistering 500 words per second.
This is no easy task, says Salim Roukos, a senior manager for multilingual natural-language processing technologies at IBM's Watson Research Center. Because word order in Arabic sentences differs from word order in English, verbs can get lost--quite literally--in machine translation. Moreover, Arabic words have prefixes, suffixes, and other forms that allow them to agree in gender and number--a rigor that freewheeling English lacks and that makes translation from English to Arabic even trickier.
IBM's statistically based translation system has been trained on a massive amount of material, called a parallel corpus, in both modern standard Arabic and formal English--the language of news reports. But the system struggles with slang and other colloquialisms--all the more difficult in Arabic because street talk varies from country to country.
But this is exactly the sort of language that Meadan's online community will use. So the alpha test, which was launched last month, also calls on the services of human translators to correct IBM's machine translations. There is plenty of work to be done. Even a basic English expression like "That's great!" comes out of the machine as the equivalent of "That's big!" in Arabic. It's up to users to point this out and up to designated translators to fix it. The correct pair of translations then becomes another piece of data from which the machine can learn.
Meadan hopes to roll out a beta version later this year--provided it raises the money it needs to move forward. Bice has high hopes. "A year from now, I hope we are a global social network, talking across languages about events in the world." Insha'allah, as we say in Arabic.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
North Korea Paid Off
N.Korea seeks oil for halting nuclear reactor: media
Sun Feb 4, 2007 6:35am ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea's top nuclear envoy has told former U.S. officials that Pyongyang wants more than half a million tonnes of fuel oil a year in return for suspending its atomic reactor, a Japanese daily said on Sunday.
Shutting down North Korea's sole operating reactor is expected to be a key negotiating point when six-country discussions on ending the North's nuclear weapons programme resume in Beijing on Thursday, analysts said.
The Asahi Shimbun said North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan had set out Pyongyang's position when he met former State Department official Joel Witt and nuclear expert David Albright in the North Korean capital last week.
The demand would exceed the energy assistance received by the impoverished communist state under an 1994 deal with Washington, which collapsed when the current nuclear crisis began in 2002.
Kim and other North Korean officials said the country would halt the operation of its reactor at Yongbyon if it obtained energy assistance equivalent to more than 500,000 tonnes of fuel oil a year, the Asahi said, quoting the two Americans.
North Korean officials also demanded that Washington lift its financial sanctions against the country as well as removing North Korea from the list of "terrorism-sponsoring" nations, it said.
Kim was likely to have made the demands to U.S. counterpart Christopher Hill at unprecedented meetings the two men held in Berlin last month, but might have decided to reiterate them to seek concessions when the six-party talks resume, Asahi said.
OPTIMISM Continued...
From the beginning, the United States has shown a different ideology in dealing with the North Koreans. They were talking nuclear weapons prior to the start of the Iraqi war. Now, it seems the North Koreans have realized their substantial power in dealing with America. It seems kind of preposterous of them suggest they should be paid to stop producing nuclear weapons. After considering why they would have this perspective, it is a totally rational way of thinking.
The North Koreans stated they would use a nuclear reactor without any admonitions. They had three years to put forth any ideas or technology dealing with this area of expertise. Weapons have been tested and re-tested. Now, in regards to North Korea, we seem to want to negotiate with a country who has remained adamant in their position and stance after being forewarned without repercussions.
Now, do you suppose I am bit slow? I suppose I am confused. The best confusion may spawn great ideas, though. Let us suppose we treat Iran as if they have not gained any knowledge in production of nuclear weapons. Let us also suppose they have not gained enough experience to be able to accurately make nuclear weapons. Let us suppose they have just begun the journey which the North Koreans have travelled to the end of the road.
Now, considering all of the prior ramblings, how can we not negotiate with Iran or Syria, but bow down before the great North Koreans? Now, how should this particular stance taken by America be construed as a symbol of strength to the rational people of the international community. Possibly, hoping to accommodate them with their suggestions...hmmm.
Sun Feb 4, 2007 6:35am ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea's top nuclear envoy has told former U.S. officials that Pyongyang wants more than half a million tonnes of fuel oil a year in return for suspending its atomic reactor, a Japanese daily said on Sunday.
Shutting down North Korea's sole operating reactor is expected to be a key negotiating point when six-country discussions on ending the North's nuclear weapons programme resume in Beijing on Thursday, analysts said.
The Asahi Shimbun said North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan had set out Pyongyang's position when he met former State Department official Joel Witt and nuclear expert David Albright in the North Korean capital last week.
The demand would exceed the energy assistance received by the impoverished communist state under an 1994 deal with Washington, which collapsed when the current nuclear crisis began in 2002.
Kim and other North Korean officials said the country would halt the operation of its reactor at Yongbyon if it obtained energy assistance equivalent to more than 500,000 tonnes of fuel oil a year, the Asahi said, quoting the two Americans.
North Korean officials also demanded that Washington lift its financial sanctions against the country as well as removing North Korea from the list of "terrorism-sponsoring" nations, it said.
Kim was likely to have made the demands to U.S. counterpart Christopher Hill at unprecedented meetings the two men held in Berlin last month, but might have decided to reiterate them to seek concessions when the six-party talks resume, Asahi said.
OPTIMISM Continued...
From the beginning, the United States has shown a different ideology in dealing with the North Koreans. They were talking nuclear weapons prior to the start of the Iraqi war. Now, it seems the North Koreans have realized their substantial power in dealing with America. It seems kind of preposterous of them suggest they should be paid to stop producing nuclear weapons. After considering why they would have this perspective, it is a totally rational way of thinking.
The North Koreans stated they would use a nuclear reactor without any admonitions. They had three years to put forth any ideas or technology dealing with this area of expertise. Weapons have been tested and re-tested. Now, in regards to North Korea, we seem to want to negotiate with a country who has remained adamant in their position and stance after being forewarned without repercussions.
Now, do you suppose I am bit slow? I suppose I am confused. The best confusion may spawn great ideas, though. Let us suppose we treat Iran as if they have not gained any knowledge in production of nuclear weapons. Let us also suppose they have not gained enough experience to be able to accurately make nuclear weapons. Let us suppose they have just begun the journey which the North Koreans have travelled to the end of the road.
Now, considering all of the prior ramblings, how can we not negotiate with Iran or Syria, but bow down before the great North Koreans? Now, how should this particular stance taken by America be construed as a symbol of strength to the rational people of the international community. Possibly, hoping to accommodate them with their suggestions...hmmm.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Dangers of Girls
- All of the information about the Human Papilloma Virus is interesting. In more than 90 percent of cases, the infections are harmless and go away without treatment.
What is most interesting of all is the fact that Texas ordered it a mandatory vaccination for young girls? It is quite peculiar though that young boys are not mandated to be equal participants in this order. Since boys can get it as well, the disease is devastating considering it is transmitted sexually, should they happen upon the Human Papilloma virus which is a silent disease. How would they know to seek treatment? If they would not seek treatment, would females not be exposed to it? Although sex is the most common mechanism for transmitting the papillomavirus, it is not the only way.Also, the papilloma viruses that infect our hands and feet are transmitted by contact with infected surfaces. There are many issues which have not been addressed.
What I find truly remarkable is the fact that any parents would willingly want to inject their children with a Sexually Transmitted Disease as young as 9 years old. What are the chances of a backlash? What I mean to question is what should happen if it backfires as the flu does? This is still an experimental drug since it has just been released.
No study has had enough time to be assured that it is conclusive in stating that should any child receive this treatment, they will have increased chances of not getting cervical cancer, warts or any other results from HPV later in life. The HPV vaccine is given through a series of three shots over a 6-month period. The second and third doses should be given 2 and 6 months (respectively) after the first dose.
Forgive me for rambling in my state of confusion, but could anyone please help me understand. What I would like to understand is simple? How in the world can a clinical study be completed in one year give substantial information to the effect that a person will have significantly diminished their chances of becoming ill from any HPV? Now, should the medical profession or any studies show that the disease is definitely not in their system. It would be absolutely wonderful. Also, it would be understandable since the girl starts receiving the treatment at the age of 9. I would hope most parents would be able to acknowledge this medical discovery without seeking or incurring any medical expertise or expenses. This particular vaccination supposedly would ensure protection for quite some time. Can anyone tell me why Merck is unaware of any particular time period this protection would last? Now, forgive my confusion again, but I have difficulty believing my child would benefit greatly, leastly, or at all from chemicals and disease given by a major pharmaceutical company which states in their own files that the duration of immunity is unknown. Is there a sensible reason which will help me or any other parent clear their confusion over this particular issue? This truly goes beyond my scope of understanding. - Duration of immunity is unknown
- Shots initial adminitstered between the ages of 9-12 years of age
- Males do not have any vaccination
- Other variations of HPV cause cervical cancer
Ramifications of backlash in such a young girl, as with the flu vaccine, would be devastating. Has anyone considered how devastating that could be to a young girl? Not only a young girl, but a young girl who has not discovered sexual activity. How could I possiby explain the examination process to my child in a way that would allow her to understand? Her understanding would become truly limited after enduring the physical examination process. Grown women do not find the process at all appealing. How could she understand this? Better yet, how could she understand that she was taken to a medical facility which was allowed to administer medication which caused this painful process to become necessary? Why should anyone have to contemplate explaining this? Of course, this is only a possibility.
To me it is necessary to have foresight for all potential complications which may occur with an experimental drug. Another consideration which has been overlooked is HPV can still develop. There are over 100 different types of Human Papilloma viruses. The vaccine administered by Merck was developed to protect against 6 of these. Types 2,4,6,8,11,16, and 18. HPV 2 and 4 cause common warts on the hands. HPV 6 causes genital warts. Some types of HPV have no visible signs and cannot be seen with the naked eye. These are the types that infect the cervix and are identified by the cell changes (dysplasia) sometimes found on the Pap test. Some of these HPV types are HPV 16, and HPV 18.
At this point, it is an experimental drug. Not enough data nor testing has been completed to allow this medication to become mandatory for children so young.
On the other hand, I do realize the severity of cancer nor do I want a loved one to have it. Still, I can not find myself in agreement with ordering children as young as 9 to become injected with an STD to prevent further complications. Since all there are other variations of HPV which cause cancer. This disease will still remain a potential threat. HPV is not a disease which is eliminated or diminished with the usage of condoms.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Vaccination Ordered with Unknown Immunity Duration
Today, Governor Rick Perry used his position to make girls in the state of Texas submit to the HPV vaccine. The vaccine is three shots administered to diminish the chances of girls developing cervical cancer later. Now, there is a bit of controversy surrounding this particular issue. First of all, Gardasil produced by Merck, is a very new vaccine which does not provide the opportunity of gaining a lot of proven and known facts of what the medication is capable of. No one wants to experiment on their own children, especially not with medication. Maryland has decided not to pass legislation mandating this particular vaccine.
Since children would have to be vaccinated as young as 9 years old, it is understandable that parents would have difficulty allowing this particular inoculation.The controversy is partly due to the subliminal message of acceptable intercourse for children entirely too young to understand the consequences due to their age. Hopefully, the parents do not have any reason for concern in this area. Though, we know the world is full of all kinds of surprises and pressure from various sources. Aside from the children, the parents would like to be the decision-makers of their children. Perhaps, parents should be allowed that courtesy.
Raising children is becoming as regulated as corporations should be. Why should things be this way? I guess, the government has substantial reasons to mandate a new vaccination for young girls. Merck knows for sure that one of the reasons this drug is necessary is definitely not due to the duration of immunity after complete treatment with Gardasil. Now, exactly, why should any legislation mandate this particular vaccine is unknown? How often does this mean girls will be inoculated? How well can a 9 year old girl be shielded from HPV if the duration of immunity is unknown is beyond MERCK and I?!! How about that? It is a blessing to have the love of children and it should be returned equally.
Since children would have to be vaccinated as young as 9 years old, it is understandable that parents would have difficulty allowing this particular inoculation.The controversy is partly due to the subliminal message of acceptable intercourse for children entirely too young to understand the consequences due to their age. Hopefully, the parents do not have any reason for concern in this area. Though, we know the world is full of all kinds of surprises and pressure from various sources. Aside from the children, the parents would like to be the decision-makers of their children. Perhaps, parents should be allowed that courtesy.
Raising children is becoming as regulated as corporations should be. Why should things be this way? I guess, the government has substantial reasons to mandate a new vaccination for young girls. Merck knows for sure that one of the reasons this drug is necessary is definitely not due to the duration of immunity after complete treatment with Gardasil. Now, exactly, why should any legislation mandate this particular vaccine is unknown? How often does this mean girls will be inoculated? How well can a 9 year old girl be shielded from HPV if the duration of immunity is unknown is beyond MERCK and I?!! How about that? It is a blessing to have the love of children and it should be returned equally.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Sony admits CD's damage computers
Sony CD row compensation agreed
Alicia Keys was one of the artists affected by the CD debacle
Record label Sony BMG is to reimburse consumers up to $150 (£76) for damage to computers caused by CDs with hidden anti-piracy software.
The settlement was announced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The US regulator said the anti-piracy software wrongly limited the devices on which music could be played to those made by Sony or Microsoft.
It also monitored listening habits so targeted marketing messages could be sent to consumers.
The FTC said the software "exposed consumers to significant security risks and was unreasonably difficult to uninstall".
Under the settlement, Sony BMG must allow consumers to exchange affected CDs bought before 31 December 2006, and reimburse them up to $150 (£76) to repair damage to their computers.
Consent
Sony BMG, which agreed to the settlement figure, did not admit a law violation and the FTC will decide whether to make the settlement final after a 30-day public consultation.
In 2005, the company shipped more than 12 million CDs, each loaded with one of two anti-piracy programs.
About seven million of the CDs were sold and the Digital Rights Management software installed itself on consumers' computers without their knowledge or consent.
CDs by artists such as The Coral, Alicia Keys, Dido, the Foo Fighters and the Backstreet Boys were among the affected discs.
No-one from New York-based Sony BMG was available for comment.
In December, the company settled similar cases with more than 40 states, agreeing to pay more than $4m (£2.03m) to reimburse customers.
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
Alicia Keys was one of the artists affected by the CD debacle
Record label Sony BMG is to reimburse consumers up to $150 (£76) for damage to computers caused by CDs with hidden anti-piracy software.
The settlement was announced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The US regulator said the anti-piracy software wrongly limited the devices on which music could be played to those made by Sony or Microsoft.
It also monitored listening habits so targeted marketing messages could be sent to consumers.
The FTC said the software "exposed consumers to significant security risks and was unreasonably difficult to uninstall".
Under the settlement, Sony BMG must allow consumers to exchange affected CDs bought before 31 December 2006, and reimburse them up to $150 (£76) to repair damage to their computers.
Consent
Sony BMG, which agreed to the settlement figure, did not admit a law violation and the FTC will decide whether to make the settlement final after a 30-day public consultation.
In 2005, the company shipped more than 12 million CDs, each loaded with one of two anti-piracy programs.
About seven million of the CDs were sold and the Digital Rights Management software installed itself on consumers' computers without their knowledge or consent.
CDs by artists such as The Coral, Alicia Keys, Dido, the Foo Fighters and the Backstreet Boys were among the affected discs.
No-one from New York-based Sony BMG was available for comment.
In December, the company settled similar cases with more than 40 states, agreeing to pay more than $4m (£2.03m) to reimburse customers.
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
Bush decapitates the Middle East
Europeans fear US attack on Iran as nuclear row intensifies·
Transatlantic rift emerges over how to handle crisis · America builds up its naval forces in the Gulf
Ian Traynor in Brussels and Jonathan Steele
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian
Senior European policy-makers are increasingly worried that the US administration will resort to air strikes against Iran to try to destroy its suspect nuclear programme.
As transatlantic friction over how to deal with the Iranian impasse intensifies, there are fears in European capitals that the nuclear crisis could come to a head this year because of US frustration with Russian stalling tactics at the UN security council. "The clock is ticking," said one European official. "Military action has come back on to the table more seriously than before. The language in the US has changed."
As the Americans continue their biggest naval build-up in the Gulf since the start of the Iraq war four years ago, a transatlantic rift is opening up on several important aspects of the Iran dispute.
The Bush administration will shortly publish a dossier of charges of alleged Iranian subversion in Iraq. "Iran has steadily ramped up its activity in Iraq in the last three to four months. This applies to the scope and pace of their operations. You could call these brazen activities," a senior US official said in London yesterday.
Although the Iranians were primarily in Shia areas, they were not confined to them, the US source said, implying that they had formed links with Sunni insurgents and were helping them with booby-trap bombs aimed at Iraqi and US forces, new versions of the "improvised explosive devices".
Senior members of the US Congress have raised concerns that the US will attack Iran in retaliation for its alleged activities in Iraq. The official said there were no plans for "cross-border operations" from Iraq to Iran. But he said: "We don't want a progressively more confident and bolder Iran ... The perception that Iran is ascendant in the region and that there are no limits to what Iran can do - that's what is destabilising."
The Americans and Europeans have sought to maintain a common front on the nuclear issue for the past 30 months, with the European troika of Britain, France and Germany running failed negotiations with the Iranians and the Americans tacitly supporting them.
But diplomats in Brussels and those dealing with the dispute in Vienna say a fissure has opened up between the US and western Europe on three crucial aspects - the military option; how and how quickly to hit Iran with economic sanctions already decreed by the UN security council; and how to deal with Russian opposition to action against Iran through the security council.
"There's anxiety everywhere you turn," said a diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. "The Europeans are very concerned the shit could hit the fan."
A US navy battle group of seven vessels was steaming towards the Gulf yesterday from the Red Sea, part of a deployment of 50 US ships, including two aircraft carriers, expected in the area in weeks.
"No path is envisaged by the EU other than the UN path," the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, told the Guardian yesterday. "The priority for all of us is that Iran complies with UN security council resolutions."
The IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, called at the weekend for a "timeout" in the worsening confrontation in an attempt to enable both sides to save face and climb down. But the Americans rejected the proposal and European officials involved in the dispute also believe the Iranians cannot be trusted to stick to a deal.
Despite recurring tensions on the Middle East between the US and France, the French are the most hawkish of the Europeans on Iran and are said to back a US drive to tighten the noose on Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The populist and recalcitrant leader is perceived to have been weakened recently, in part because of a mishandling of the nuclear row. "One group of western countries thinks it's a good time to step up the pressure on Ahmadinejad. All options are on the table. Others are worried we might be stumbling into a war," said another diplomat familiar with the dispute.
Is this article not truly informative of European opinion? Or shall we say the international community has the same concerns of the impact it will have upon us all? Bush seems geared towards another war before finishing the first war. What victories he must covet?!! In order to continue to act against the wishes of the American people as well as the international community means that Bush is definitely not afraid of being alone. Of course, my perspective could be a bit off, since he had quite a bit of approval for invading a country which had nothing to do with WMD nor bin Laden. Well, what do I know? I am not qualified to lead this country. I am not a person of honor who shall lead this country in the proper direction with various wars which my country is not equipped to fight by equipment nor personnel against the interests of my country, the international community nor maintaining various purposes of each action. It takes a really charismatic person to lead the global community in such a way that a wonderful purpose is truly hidden from all observers. This is what makes a true leader of the people. Boy, I sure missed a lot growing up.
Transatlantic rift emerges over how to handle crisis · America builds up its naval forces in the Gulf
Ian Traynor in Brussels and Jonathan Steele
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian
Senior European policy-makers are increasingly worried that the US administration will resort to air strikes against Iran to try to destroy its suspect nuclear programme.
As transatlantic friction over how to deal with the Iranian impasse intensifies, there are fears in European capitals that the nuclear crisis could come to a head this year because of US frustration with Russian stalling tactics at the UN security council. "The clock is ticking," said one European official. "Military action has come back on to the table more seriously than before. The language in the US has changed."
As the Americans continue their biggest naval build-up in the Gulf since the start of the Iraq war four years ago, a transatlantic rift is opening up on several important aspects of the Iran dispute.
The Bush administration will shortly publish a dossier of charges of alleged Iranian subversion in Iraq. "Iran has steadily ramped up its activity in Iraq in the last three to four months. This applies to the scope and pace of their operations. You could call these brazen activities," a senior US official said in London yesterday.
Although the Iranians were primarily in Shia areas, they were not confined to them, the US source said, implying that they had formed links with Sunni insurgents and were helping them with booby-trap bombs aimed at Iraqi and US forces, new versions of the "improvised explosive devices".
Senior members of the US Congress have raised concerns that the US will attack Iran in retaliation for its alleged activities in Iraq. The official said there were no plans for "cross-border operations" from Iraq to Iran. But he said: "We don't want a progressively more confident and bolder Iran ... The perception that Iran is ascendant in the region and that there are no limits to what Iran can do - that's what is destabilising."
The Americans and Europeans have sought to maintain a common front on the nuclear issue for the past 30 months, with the European troika of Britain, France and Germany running failed negotiations with the Iranians and the Americans tacitly supporting them.
But diplomats in Brussels and those dealing with the dispute in Vienna say a fissure has opened up between the US and western Europe on three crucial aspects - the military option; how and how quickly to hit Iran with economic sanctions already decreed by the UN security council; and how to deal with Russian opposition to action against Iran through the security council.
"There's anxiety everywhere you turn," said a diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. "The Europeans are very concerned the shit could hit the fan."
A US navy battle group of seven vessels was steaming towards the Gulf yesterday from the Red Sea, part of a deployment of 50 US ships, including two aircraft carriers, expected in the area in weeks.
"No path is envisaged by the EU other than the UN path," the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, told the Guardian yesterday. "The priority for all of us is that Iran complies with UN security council resolutions."
The IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, called at the weekend for a "timeout" in the worsening confrontation in an attempt to enable both sides to save face and climb down. But the Americans rejected the proposal and European officials involved in the dispute also believe the Iranians cannot be trusted to stick to a deal.
Despite recurring tensions on the Middle East between the US and France, the French are the most hawkish of the Europeans on Iran and are said to back a US drive to tighten the noose on Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The populist and recalcitrant leader is perceived to have been weakened recently, in part because of a mishandling of the nuclear row. "One group of western countries thinks it's a good time to step up the pressure on Ahmadinejad. All options are on the table. Others are worried we might be stumbling into a war," said another diplomat familiar with the dispute.
Is this article not truly informative of European opinion? Or shall we say the international community has the same concerns of the impact it will have upon us all? Bush seems geared towards another war before finishing the first war. What victories he must covet?!! In order to continue to act against the wishes of the American people as well as the international community means that Bush is definitely not afraid of being alone. Of course, my perspective could be a bit off, since he had quite a bit of approval for invading a country which had nothing to do with WMD nor bin Laden. Well, what do I know? I am not qualified to lead this country. I am not a person of honor who shall lead this country in the proper direction with various wars which my country is not equipped to fight by equipment nor personnel against the interests of my country, the international community nor maintaining various purposes of each action. It takes a really charismatic person to lead the global community in such a way that a wonderful purpose is truly hidden from all observers. This is what makes a true leader of the people. Boy, I sure missed a lot growing up.
CIA Global Prisons
Germany issues arrest warrants for suspected CIA agents
Associated PressWednesday January 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Khaled al-Masri, who says he was abducted in Macedonia and flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, where he was abused.
German prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for 13 suspected CIA agents over their alleged kidnapping three years ago of a German citizen, authorities said today.
The unidentified agents are being sought on suspicion of the wrongful imprisonment of Khaled al-Masri and of causing him serious bodily harm, said Munich prosecutor Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld. He said the warrants were issued in the last few days.
Mr al-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, says he was abducted in December 2003 at the Serbian-Macedonian border and flown by the CIA to a detention centre in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was abused.
He says he was released in Albania in May 2004 after the CIA discovered they had the wrong person.
Human rights campaigners have used Mr al-Masri's story to press the US to stop flying terrorism suspects to countries other than the US where they could face abuse - a practice known as "extraordinary rendition". Italy has issued arrest warrants for alleged CIA agents in a separate case.
The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and other US officials have not yet commented on the case. However, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has said the US has acknowledged making a mistake with Mr al-Masri.
The German government refused to comment on the arrest warrants, citing the ongoing judicial proceedings.
The CIA also declined to comment.
Germany's NDR television released a list of the names of the suspected agents - 11 men and two women - it said its reporters had obtained. It said three had been contacted by its reporters and had refused to comment.
Though the prosecutors' office refused to confirm the names, Mr Schmidt-Sommerfeld said, "the personal details contained in the arrest warrants are, according to our current knowledge, aliases of CIA agents".
"Further investigation will, among other things, concentrate on trying to determine the clear identities of the suspects," he said in a statement. Mr al-Masri's attorney, Manfred Gnjidic, said the issuance of the arrest warrants were "a very important step in the rehabilitation of al-Masri". "It shows us that we were right in putting our trust in the German authorities and the German prosecutors," he said at a news conference.
Prosecutors were led to the suspects after receiving a list in December 2005 of possible people involved in the kidnapping. The list was compiled by a Spanish journalist from sources within Spain's civil guard, a paramilitary police unit that answers to the interior ministry, Mr Schmidt-Sommerfeld said.
With help from Spanish authorities, they were then able to pursue an investigation against "concrete persons," Mr Schmidt-Sommerfeld said. Tips were also received from others, including the Milan prosecutor's office and Dick Marty, a Swiss senator who led an inquiry into CIA renditions on behalf of the Council of Europe. Mr Schmidt-Sommerfeld did not elaborate on what the tips were.
The CIA agents are suspected to have flown in January 2004 aboard a Boeing 737 from the Spanish island of Palma de Mallorca to pick up Mr al-Masri after he had been detained by Macedonian authorities, Munich prosecutor August Stern said. ARD public television has reported that investigators worked from passport photocopies made by a hotel where the suspects stayed, but Mr Stern said he could not confirm that or other details. The report last year gave what it said were the cover names of three men who were pilots and lived in the US state of North Carolina.
In October, Munich prosecutors said that, based on the list, they were seeking to ban several CIA agents suspected of kidnapping Mr al-Masri from entering German territory. They did not give any further details.
In a separate case, Italian authorities are seeking the arrest of 26 Americans, all but one believed to be CIA agents, in connection with the 2003 kidnapping in Milan of Egyptian cleric and terror suspect Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr.
The al-Masri case has been a sore point in otherwise good German-US relations.
The US justice department has declined to provide Munich prosecutors assistance, citing ongoing legal proceedings in the US.
Mr al-Masri has asked a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, to reinstate a lawsuit he filed against the CIA. A judge dismissed the lawsuit in May, ruling that a trial could harm national security by revealing details about CIA activities.
Article continues
This seems a bit like the confirmation which Bush denied for United States detention centers. If I recall correctly, Bush denied there were other facilities where prisoners of detention were being held prior, during and after the Abu incident. He was accused of doing this very thing which he adamantly denied. Now, what happened to that particular line? Well, time will decide what truth comes forth this time around.
Associated PressWednesday January 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Khaled al-Masri, who says he was abducted in Macedonia and flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, where he was abused.
German prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for 13 suspected CIA agents over their alleged kidnapping three years ago of a German citizen, authorities said today.
The unidentified agents are being sought on suspicion of the wrongful imprisonment of Khaled al-Masri and of causing him serious bodily harm, said Munich prosecutor Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld. He said the warrants were issued in the last few days.
Mr al-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, says he was abducted in December 2003 at the Serbian-Macedonian border and flown by the CIA to a detention centre in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was abused.
He says he was released in Albania in May 2004 after the CIA discovered they had the wrong person.
Human rights campaigners have used Mr al-Masri's story to press the US to stop flying terrorism suspects to countries other than the US where they could face abuse - a practice known as "extraordinary rendition". Italy has issued arrest warrants for alleged CIA agents in a separate case.
The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and other US officials have not yet commented on the case. However, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has said the US has acknowledged making a mistake with Mr al-Masri.
The German government refused to comment on the arrest warrants, citing the ongoing judicial proceedings.
The CIA also declined to comment.
Germany's NDR television released a list of the names of the suspected agents - 11 men and two women - it said its reporters had obtained. It said three had been contacted by its reporters and had refused to comment.
Though the prosecutors' office refused to confirm the names, Mr Schmidt-Sommerfeld said, "the personal details contained in the arrest warrants are, according to our current knowledge, aliases of CIA agents".
"Further investigation will, among other things, concentrate on trying to determine the clear identities of the suspects," he said in a statement. Mr al-Masri's attorney, Manfred Gnjidic, said the issuance of the arrest warrants were "a very important step in the rehabilitation of al-Masri". "It shows us that we were right in putting our trust in the German authorities and the German prosecutors," he said at a news conference.
Prosecutors were led to the suspects after receiving a list in December 2005 of possible people involved in the kidnapping. The list was compiled by a Spanish journalist from sources within Spain's civil guard, a paramilitary police unit that answers to the interior ministry, Mr Schmidt-Sommerfeld said.
With help from Spanish authorities, they were then able to pursue an investigation against "concrete persons," Mr Schmidt-Sommerfeld said. Tips were also received from others, including the Milan prosecutor's office and Dick Marty, a Swiss senator who led an inquiry into CIA renditions on behalf of the Council of Europe. Mr Schmidt-Sommerfeld did not elaborate on what the tips were.
The CIA agents are suspected to have flown in January 2004 aboard a Boeing 737 from the Spanish island of Palma de Mallorca to pick up Mr al-Masri after he had been detained by Macedonian authorities, Munich prosecutor August Stern said. ARD public television has reported that investigators worked from passport photocopies made by a hotel where the suspects stayed, but Mr Stern said he could not confirm that or other details. The report last year gave what it said were the cover names of three men who were pilots and lived in the US state of North Carolina.
In October, Munich prosecutors said that, based on the list, they were seeking to ban several CIA agents suspected of kidnapping Mr al-Masri from entering German territory. They did not give any further details.
In a separate case, Italian authorities are seeking the arrest of 26 Americans, all but one believed to be CIA agents, in connection with the 2003 kidnapping in Milan of Egyptian cleric and terror suspect Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr.
The al-Masri case has been a sore point in otherwise good German-US relations.
The US justice department has declined to provide Munich prosecutors assistance, citing ongoing legal proceedings in the US.
Mr al-Masri has asked a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, to reinstate a lawsuit he filed against the CIA. A judge dismissed the lawsuit in May, ruling that a trial could harm national security by revealing details about CIA activities.
Article continues
This seems a bit like the confirmation which Bush denied for United States detention centers. If I recall correctly, Bush denied there were other facilities where prisoners of detention were being held prior, during and after the Abu incident. He was accused of doing this very thing which he adamantly denied. Now, what happened to that particular line? Well, time will decide what truth comes forth this time around.
Private Consultant Nominated for Spying
Top spy-chief nominee faces hurdles
By Ted Bridis - The Associated PressPosted : Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 14:35:46 EST
President Bush’s choice to be the nation’s new spy chief works as a $2 million-a-year private consultant with some of the same senior military and intelligence officials he would supervise as director of national intelligence.
Retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell could face an unusually daunting challenge avoiding ethical entanglements after a decade working with Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., a large defense and intelligence consulting company with sales of $3.7 billion worldwide, according to an extensive Associated Press review of McConnell’s finances and business deals.
McConnell’s Senate confirmation hearing is to begin Thursday.
A Senate Intelligence Committee member, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he already has urged McConnell to be prepared to discuss his work as a consultant and its implications on the job of chief over all U.S. intelligence agencies. Those agencies rely heavily on work by outside consultants, who often are hired under contracts kept secret for national security reasons.
“I’m going to bring it up,” Wyden said. “I made it clear that I was going to be asking questions about issues relating to his work with contractors.”
In May, for example, McConnell and other company executives met privately in San Antonio with Maj. Gen. Craig Koziol, a top Air Force intelligence officer in charge of cyberwarfare, according to records obtained by the AP under the Freedom of Information Act. The company bid months later on a related contract from the Air Intelligence Agency, part of the U.S. intelligence community that McConnell would oversee as the national director.
More than half of Booz Allen Hamilton’s sales come from such government contracts. McConnell’s closest colleagues at the company anticipate intense scrutiny over its future relationship with him as the overseer of the nation’s 16 spy agencies.
“I will never be able to go in and see him in his office,” said Richard Wilhelm, a Booz Allen Hamilton senior vice president who has worked with McConnell for more than 30 years. “He’s said, ‘Unfortunately, I’ll not be able to talk to you guys anymore.’ We’ll have to be very careful.”
Efforts to reach McConnell through the White House and through Booz Allen Hamilton were unsuccessful. Presidential nominees routinely do not speak publicly or with reporters before Senate confirmation hearings.
The White House promised that McConnell would divest any financial holdings in Booz Allen Hamilton if he is confirmed as intelligence chief. In addition to his $1,999,840 salary, McConnell owns $1 million to $5 million in company stock, plus up to $1.15 million more in other investment funds owned through the company, according to financial reports he submitted to the White House.
McConnell would earn $186,600 annually as director of national intelligence.
“There has to be the highest level of oversight within the agency and Congress to make sure any appearance of impropriety is totally investigated and erased,” said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based whistleblowers group. Amey said public scrutiny of classified intelligence contracts is limited because of secrecy.
Booz Allen Hamilton and the intelligence director’s office separately said each will vigorously enforce ethics rules related to McConnell and the company.
In a statement, the agency pledged to refer potential business conflicts to ethics officers inside federal agencies.
A Booz Allen Hamilton spokesman, George Farrar, said the company will establish contracting firewalls to avoid conflicts with McConnell. “That has to be the case,” Farrar said. “You have to maintain absolutely by-the-rules contracting.”
McConnell’s nomination comes in the midst of a broad, government-wide review by the intelligence director’s own office about the role of private contractors in U.S. spy agencies. That report, which will examine whether the government hires too many such contractors, is nearly finished but has not yet been sent to Congress.
McConnell, a former director of the National Security Agency until 1996, is described by those who have worked with him as an affable and well-respected intelligence expert. He is credited with recognizing more than a decade ago the risks from electronic attacks by foreigners against important U.S. computer networks — years ahead of many other government officials.
McConnell is still expecting an unspecified lump-sum retirement payment, an unspecified bonus and an unspecified payment to his retirement account from Booz Allen Hamilton, according to his financial records. The company also will continue to pay for his medical and dental insurance.
Separately, McConnell draws $90,944 annually from his Navy retirement and owns smaller amounts of stock in other companies that also work extensively with the U.S. government, including Halliburton Co., Boeing Co., L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Oracle Corp., Microsoft Corp. and others. He also earns $16,000 as a board member for CompuDyne Corp., which sells security systems to the federal government, and $30,000 as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, a trade group that lobbies the government on intelligence matters.
It was unclear how much McConnell’s finances have changed since he left U.S. government work in 1996. The National Security Agency, which he led, told the AP it could not locate McConnell’s financial records from that period in its files. It suggested the records might have been destroyed because so much time had passed since he worked there.
Associated Press Writer Sharon Theimer contributed to this report.
Print Email Discuss
This is an interesting article since it describes the traits which seem to inspire faith within this particular administration. McConnell definitely has all of the contacts necessary to further his career in the projected field should his nomination be successful. What is a strong question in my mind is this. Why would someone who has a salary of approx. 2 million dollars, a pension from the military of approx 91k, board memberships which amount to approx. 32k plus various other investments resign for approx. 190k? Is that a legitimate bargin? Or is there something missing which makes this potential position seem much more lucrative than the other monetary gains? How about it people? Let me know what you think of this article.
By Ted Bridis - The Associated PressPosted : Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 14:35:46 EST
President Bush’s choice to be the nation’s new spy chief works as a $2 million-a-year private consultant with some of the same senior military and intelligence officials he would supervise as director of national intelligence.
Retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell could face an unusually daunting challenge avoiding ethical entanglements after a decade working with Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., a large defense and intelligence consulting company with sales of $3.7 billion worldwide, according to an extensive Associated Press review of McConnell’s finances and business deals.
McConnell’s Senate confirmation hearing is to begin Thursday.
A Senate Intelligence Committee member, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he already has urged McConnell to be prepared to discuss his work as a consultant and its implications on the job of chief over all U.S. intelligence agencies. Those agencies rely heavily on work by outside consultants, who often are hired under contracts kept secret for national security reasons.
“I’m going to bring it up,” Wyden said. “I made it clear that I was going to be asking questions about issues relating to his work with contractors.”
In May, for example, McConnell and other company executives met privately in San Antonio with Maj. Gen. Craig Koziol, a top Air Force intelligence officer in charge of cyberwarfare, according to records obtained by the AP under the Freedom of Information Act. The company bid months later on a related contract from the Air Intelligence Agency, part of the U.S. intelligence community that McConnell would oversee as the national director.
More than half of Booz Allen Hamilton’s sales come from such government contracts. McConnell’s closest colleagues at the company anticipate intense scrutiny over its future relationship with him as the overseer of the nation’s 16 spy agencies.
“I will never be able to go in and see him in his office,” said Richard Wilhelm, a Booz Allen Hamilton senior vice president who has worked with McConnell for more than 30 years. “He’s said, ‘Unfortunately, I’ll not be able to talk to you guys anymore.’ We’ll have to be very careful.”
Efforts to reach McConnell through the White House and through Booz Allen Hamilton were unsuccessful. Presidential nominees routinely do not speak publicly or with reporters before Senate confirmation hearings.
The White House promised that McConnell would divest any financial holdings in Booz Allen Hamilton if he is confirmed as intelligence chief. In addition to his $1,999,840 salary, McConnell owns $1 million to $5 million in company stock, plus up to $1.15 million more in other investment funds owned through the company, according to financial reports he submitted to the White House.
McConnell would earn $186,600 annually as director of national intelligence.
“There has to be the highest level of oversight within the agency and Congress to make sure any appearance of impropriety is totally investigated and erased,” said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based whistleblowers group. Amey said public scrutiny of classified intelligence contracts is limited because of secrecy.
Booz Allen Hamilton and the intelligence director’s office separately said each will vigorously enforce ethics rules related to McConnell and the company.
In a statement, the agency pledged to refer potential business conflicts to ethics officers inside federal agencies.
A Booz Allen Hamilton spokesman, George Farrar, said the company will establish contracting firewalls to avoid conflicts with McConnell. “That has to be the case,” Farrar said. “You have to maintain absolutely by-the-rules contracting.”
McConnell’s nomination comes in the midst of a broad, government-wide review by the intelligence director’s own office about the role of private contractors in U.S. spy agencies. That report, which will examine whether the government hires too many such contractors, is nearly finished but has not yet been sent to Congress.
McConnell, a former director of the National Security Agency until 1996, is described by those who have worked with him as an affable and well-respected intelligence expert. He is credited with recognizing more than a decade ago the risks from electronic attacks by foreigners against important U.S. computer networks — years ahead of many other government officials.
McConnell is still expecting an unspecified lump-sum retirement payment, an unspecified bonus and an unspecified payment to his retirement account from Booz Allen Hamilton, according to his financial records. The company also will continue to pay for his medical and dental insurance.
Separately, McConnell draws $90,944 annually from his Navy retirement and owns smaller amounts of stock in other companies that also work extensively with the U.S. government, including Halliburton Co., Boeing Co., L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Oracle Corp., Microsoft Corp. and others. He also earns $16,000 as a board member for CompuDyne Corp., which sells security systems to the federal government, and $30,000 as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, a trade group that lobbies the government on intelligence matters.
It was unclear how much McConnell’s finances have changed since he left U.S. government work in 1996. The National Security Agency, which he led, told the AP it could not locate McConnell’s financial records from that period in its files. It suggested the records might have been destroyed because so much time had passed since he worked there.
Associated Press Writer Sharon Theimer contributed to this report.
Print Email Discuss
This is an interesting article since it describes the traits which seem to inspire faith within this particular administration. McConnell definitely has all of the contacts necessary to further his career in the projected field should his nomination be successful. What is a strong question in my mind is this. Why would someone who has a salary of approx. 2 million dollars, a pension from the military of approx 91k, board memberships which amount to approx. 32k plus various other investments resign for approx. 190k? Is that a legitimate bargin? Or is there something missing which makes this potential position seem much more lucrative than the other monetary gains? How about it people? Let me know what you think of this article.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Iran and US conflict
They're broken men, so don't let them take us to a new war
Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad have lost face at home; now others must forge peaceful settlements in the Middle East
Henry PorterSunday
January 28, 2007The Observer
There is a striking likeness in the expressions of George W Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran as they confront each other over the issues of uranium enrichment and dominance in the Middle East. It falls somewhere between the chastened and defiant playground bully.
This is unsurprising: though not political equivalents, the two are really quite similar. Both had little experience of government or international affairs before being carried to power on a tide of populist, religious conservatism. Neither travelled abroad much, but they both had certain views about the world and the destiny of their nations. They had all the answers, yet there was also a dangerous lack of seriousness in them which has now earned them both the scorn of their people and rebuffs from their elders.
We think of Bush as being the more unpopular of the two. His approval ratings are at the level of Nixon's just before he left the White House. After an unconvincing performance in the State of the Union Address, his plans for the troop surge in Iraq were rejected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and may now be voted down by the entire Senate. Senior Republican senators such as Chuck Hagel and John Warner are furious that sensible suggestions contained in the Iraq Study Group Report have been ignored. Although the President looked receptive when the report was delivered to him by James Baker, there has been no progress in policy, no evidence of any kind of deeper thinking in the White House. Nothing except that familiar foggy, narrow-eyed truculence of Bush Junior in a tight spot.
This would be a depressing but for similar difficulties experienced by Ahmadinejad over the last few weeks. Just as the senior Republican elders have turned on Bush, so Iran's religious leaders are moving to restrain their President. They criticise his bellicose foreign policy and the exceptionally poor record on promised reforms at home. There is a sense of embarrassment among sophisticated Iranians about their President's pronouncements, which surely rings a bell with Americans.
The most important sign-off disenchantment came in Jomhouri Islami, the newspaper owned by Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which said in an editorial: 'Turning the nuclear issue into a propaganda issue gives the impression that to cover up the flaws in government you are exaggerating its importance.'
The paper also suggested that the President should speak about the nuclear issue less, stop provoking aggressive powers like the United States and concentrate on the daily needs of the people - 'those who voted for you on your promises'. Two weeks ago, 150 legislators sent a letter to Ahmadinejad openly attacking him for missing his budget deadline and blaming him for inflation and rising unemployment.
A loss of confidence in both men at home is important because it offers us a brief opportunity to assert diplomacy over the habits of rhetoric and escalation. Although UN nuclear experts suggest the Iranians are at least five years from developing a bomb and delivery system, the Iranians are due to open a large uranium enrichment plant within a matter of weeks. If this goes ahead, a peaceful solution will be much harder to find; to decommission this new facility will require a loss of face for Ahmadinejad.
So the hawks in the West will begin the slow drumbeat for a first strike. Indeed, it has already started. For some weeks, the Daily Telegraph has been running a series of what, in my opinion, are extremely dubious stories all attributed to mysterious 'European defence officials' and 'senior Western military sources'. A front-page story last week suggested that North Korea has offered to help Iran with a nuclear test within the year. Apart from these shadowy spokesmen, it could offer no evidence, which is why the story was only seriously picked up in Israel.
In Israel, it is believed that the Iranians may be able to launch a nuclear warhead into its territory within three, not five, years. Former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has asked who will defend the Jews from a genocidal government in Iran if they do not themselves. Israeli historian Benny Morris contributed this chilling thought to the Jerusalem Post. 'One bright morning in five to 10 years, perhaps a regional crisis, a day or a year or five years after Iran's acquisition of the bomb, the mullahs in Qom will convene in secret session... and give President Ahmadinejad the go-ahead.'
In Iran, 38 nuclear inspectors have been barred from entering the country in retaliation for the UN resolution introducing mild sanctions, and now the Iranians have installed a missile defence system (supplied by the Russians) to defend their nuclear facilities from air attacks. The Americans have responded by moving another aircraft carrier into the region and by offering Patriot missile systems to Iran's uneasy Arab neighbours.
Make no mistake: this a much more dangerous situation than Iraq and it is unfolding on the watch of a couple of second-raters.
It is true that few nations that have been more estranged over the last quarter of a century, but with the stakes so high, it seems extraordinary that America has no representation in Tehran and almost no contact except through the Swiss embassy. As Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times reminded us last week, in 2003, America rebuffed an advance made by the Iranians through the Swiss, which, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, suggested the two countries work together on the capture of terrorists in Iraq, stabilising the country after invasion and coming to an agreement on uranium enrichment as well as the financing of Hizbollah and Hamas.
The offer, made almost two years before Ahmadinejad was elected, was layered with insincerity and bluff, but professional diplomats are used to this. At least the two sides would have been talking and Tehran could have been held to account for some of the things that have been going on in Iraq.
But the situation is not beyond hope. The West must realise that if a first strike takes place we have lost. Whatever is destroyed in Iran, the Iranians will come back and produce a bomb that they may feel more entitled to use. The clash of civilisations predicted by neocon academics for years will have moved a step closer to dominating the 21st century at the very moment when all civilisation needs to concentrate on the multiple threats presented by climate change.
What we must hope for is a collective act of will in Europe, and among wiser heads in Washington DC, which says it doesn't have to be this way. This is not impossible. Only last week, representatives from 30 countries led by America and Saudi Arabia met in Paris to contribute to a £5bn fund to prop up Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government in Lebanon. This was a diplomatic action taken by both Middle Eastern and Western powers to defend Lebanon against Iran's proxies in the Hizbollah terrorist organisation, and it is exactly the right way to deal with Iran.
What can the British government do about Ahmadinejad? The first thing to is to recognise his failing support at home is an advantage that will be lost if the drumbeat to war is allowed to continue. There is no reason why Tony Blair should not add to the call from the head of UN inspectors, Mohamed ElBaradei, for a time out in which sanctions would be suspended. Blair still has a voice that is heard in the US. He should consider making a speech which insists that Bush initiates direct diplomatic relations with Tehran as well as a renewed effort to create the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. He owes something to the cause of peaceful resolution and, besides, these are hardly controversial views: both have already been expressed by James Baker's Iraq Study Group
Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad have lost face at home; now others must forge peaceful settlements in the Middle East
Henry PorterSunday
January 28, 2007The Observer
There is a striking likeness in the expressions of George W Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran as they confront each other over the issues of uranium enrichment and dominance in the Middle East. It falls somewhere between the chastened and defiant playground bully.
This is unsurprising: though not political equivalents, the two are really quite similar. Both had little experience of government or international affairs before being carried to power on a tide of populist, religious conservatism. Neither travelled abroad much, but they both had certain views about the world and the destiny of their nations. They had all the answers, yet there was also a dangerous lack of seriousness in them which has now earned them both the scorn of their people and rebuffs from their elders.
We think of Bush as being the more unpopular of the two. His approval ratings are at the level of Nixon's just before he left the White House. After an unconvincing performance in the State of the Union Address, his plans for the troop surge in Iraq were rejected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and may now be voted down by the entire Senate. Senior Republican senators such as Chuck Hagel and John Warner are furious that sensible suggestions contained in the Iraq Study Group Report have been ignored. Although the President looked receptive when the report was delivered to him by James Baker, there has been no progress in policy, no evidence of any kind of deeper thinking in the White House. Nothing except that familiar foggy, narrow-eyed truculence of Bush Junior in a tight spot.
This would be a depressing but for similar difficulties experienced by Ahmadinejad over the last few weeks. Just as the senior Republican elders have turned on Bush, so Iran's religious leaders are moving to restrain their President. They criticise his bellicose foreign policy and the exceptionally poor record on promised reforms at home. There is a sense of embarrassment among sophisticated Iranians about their President's pronouncements, which surely rings a bell with Americans.
The most important sign-off disenchantment came in Jomhouri Islami, the newspaper owned by Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which said in an editorial: 'Turning the nuclear issue into a propaganda issue gives the impression that to cover up the flaws in government you are exaggerating its importance.'
The paper also suggested that the President should speak about the nuclear issue less, stop provoking aggressive powers like the United States and concentrate on the daily needs of the people - 'those who voted for you on your promises'. Two weeks ago, 150 legislators sent a letter to Ahmadinejad openly attacking him for missing his budget deadline and blaming him for inflation and rising unemployment.
A loss of confidence in both men at home is important because it offers us a brief opportunity to assert diplomacy over the habits of rhetoric and escalation. Although UN nuclear experts suggest the Iranians are at least five years from developing a bomb and delivery system, the Iranians are due to open a large uranium enrichment plant within a matter of weeks. If this goes ahead, a peaceful solution will be much harder to find; to decommission this new facility will require a loss of face for Ahmadinejad.
So the hawks in the West will begin the slow drumbeat for a first strike. Indeed, it has already started. For some weeks, the Daily Telegraph has been running a series of what, in my opinion, are extremely dubious stories all attributed to mysterious 'European defence officials' and 'senior Western military sources'. A front-page story last week suggested that North Korea has offered to help Iran with a nuclear test within the year. Apart from these shadowy spokesmen, it could offer no evidence, which is why the story was only seriously picked up in Israel.
In Israel, it is believed that the Iranians may be able to launch a nuclear warhead into its territory within three, not five, years. Former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has asked who will defend the Jews from a genocidal government in Iran if they do not themselves. Israeli historian Benny Morris contributed this chilling thought to the Jerusalem Post. 'One bright morning in five to 10 years, perhaps a regional crisis, a day or a year or five years after Iran's acquisition of the bomb, the mullahs in Qom will convene in secret session... and give President Ahmadinejad the go-ahead.'
In Iran, 38 nuclear inspectors have been barred from entering the country in retaliation for the UN resolution introducing mild sanctions, and now the Iranians have installed a missile defence system (supplied by the Russians) to defend their nuclear facilities from air attacks. The Americans have responded by moving another aircraft carrier into the region and by offering Patriot missile systems to Iran's uneasy Arab neighbours.
Make no mistake: this a much more dangerous situation than Iraq and it is unfolding on the watch of a couple of second-raters.
It is true that few nations that have been more estranged over the last quarter of a century, but with the stakes so high, it seems extraordinary that America has no representation in Tehran and almost no contact except through the Swiss embassy. As Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times reminded us last week, in 2003, America rebuffed an advance made by the Iranians through the Swiss, which, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, suggested the two countries work together on the capture of terrorists in Iraq, stabilising the country after invasion and coming to an agreement on uranium enrichment as well as the financing of Hizbollah and Hamas.
The offer, made almost two years before Ahmadinejad was elected, was layered with insincerity and bluff, but professional diplomats are used to this. At least the two sides would have been talking and Tehran could have been held to account for some of the things that have been going on in Iraq.
But the situation is not beyond hope. The West must realise that if a first strike takes place we have lost. Whatever is destroyed in Iran, the Iranians will come back and produce a bomb that they may feel more entitled to use. The clash of civilisations predicted by neocon academics for years will have moved a step closer to dominating the 21st century at the very moment when all civilisation needs to concentrate on the multiple threats presented by climate change.
What we must hope for is a collective act of will in Europe, and among wiser heads in Washington DC, which says it doesn't have to be this way. This is not impossible. Only last week, representatives from 30 countries led by America and Saudi Arabia met in Paris to contribute to a £5bn fund to prop up Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government in Lebanon. This was a diplomatic action taken by both Middle Eastern and Western powers to defend Lebanon against Iran's proxies in the Hizbollah terrorist organisation, and it is exactly the right way to deal with Iran.
What can the British government do about Ahmadinejad? The first thing to is to recognise his failing support at home is an advantage that will be lost if the drumbeat to war is allowed to continue. There is no reason why Tony Blair should not add to the call from the head of UN inspectors, Mohamed ElBaradei, for a time out in which sanctions would be suspended. Blair still has a voice that is heard in the US. He should consider making a speech which insists that Bush initiates direct diplomatic relations with Tehran as well as a renewed effort to create the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. He owes something to the cause of peaceful resolution and, besides, these are hardly controversial views: both have already been expressed by James Baker's Iraq Study Group
US army describes Iraq abductions
by Mike Wooldridge BBC News, Baghdad
The militants got by an Iraqi police checkpoint before the attackThe US military in Iraq has given new details of an attack last week in which five US soldiers were killed.
Four of them were abducted by militants posing as an American security team.
They travelled in the kind of vehicles often used for US government convoys, Wore US-style uniforms and carried US-style weapons.
Initially the military said all five soldiers were killed repelling an attack on an Iraqi government compound in the Shia holy city of Karbala.
According to the new account, US military officers were attending a meeting in the compound when the convoy of at least five sport utility vehicles impersonating Americans entered and killed one US soldier.
There was a series of explosions and in the melee, the attackers then set off again with four captured US soldiers.
'Brazen attack'
They drove into a neighbouring province and then abandoned the SUVs.
The attack on the US troops is believed to be unprecedentedIraqi police, by now in pursuit, found the vehicles.
Two US soldiers were found handcuffed together in one of the SUVs, shot dead.
A third American soldier lay dead on the ground.
The fourth was still alive despite a gunshot wound to the head but died shortly afterwards.
Such a brazen attack is believed to be unprecedented, and the US military say the militants bypassed Iraqi police to reach their goal.
The Americans say they are not only trying to determine who carried out the attack but also the reason for the breakdown in security at the government compound.
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
This is an awfully interesting tactic. Instead of asking us to leave, they decide to help us draw our own rational conclusions. Those troops did not deserve to die such a death.
The Iraqi people have made themselves crystal clear. A genie is not necessary to understand the depth of emotion used in wanting the removal of Americans from their land.
We, the people of America, have also clarified our thoughts on this particular war.
Our trusted leader has made his position of the Iraqi war translucent to the nth degree, though he seems to be costing the American people more than he is serving them.
What can possibly be done to heal both countries intact without losing any political standing?
Nothing can be done to repair the lives of the troops involved nor their families.
It is a shame that guidance is given freely by Congress, the American people and the Iraqi people, the international community who was against from the start.
After 3 years, Mr. Bush still has not gained any additional insight other than what he had upon the initial theft of the presidency.
by Mike Wooldridge BBC News, Baghdad
The militants got by an Iraqi police checkpoint before the attackThe US military in Iraq has given new details of an attack last week in which five US soldiers were killed.
Four of them were abducted by militants posing as an American security team.
They travelled in the kind of vehicles often used for US government convoys, Wore US-style uniforms and carried US-style weapons.
Initially the military said all five soldiers were killed repelling an attack on an Iraqi government compound in the Shia holy city of Karbala.
According to the new account, US military officers were attending a meeting in the compound when the convoy of at least five sport utility vehicles impersonating Americans entered and killed one US soldier.
There was a series of explosions and in the melee, the attackers then set off again with four captured US soldiers.
'Brazen attack'
They drove into a neighbouring province and then abandoned the SUVs.
The attack on the US troops is believed to be unprecedentedIraqi police, by now in pursuit, found the vehicles.
Two US soldiers were found handcuffed together in one of the SUVs, shot dead.
A third American soldier lay dead on the ground.
The fourth was still alive despite a gunshot wound to the head but died shortly afterwards.
Such a brazen attack is believed to be unprecedented, and the US military say the militants bypassed Iraqi police to reach their goal.
The Americans say they are not only trying to determine who carried out the attack but also the reason for the breakdown in security at the government compound.
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
This is an awfully interesting tactic. Instead of asking us to leave, they decide to help us draw our own rational conclusions. Those troops did not deserve to die such a death.
The Iraqi people have made themselves crystal clear. A genie is not necessary to understand the depth of emotion used in wanting the removal of Americans from their land.
We, the people of America, have also clarified our thoughts on this particular war.
Our trusted leader has made his position of the Iraqi war translucent to the nth degree, though he seems to be costing the American people more than he is serving them.
What can possibly be done to heal both countries intact without losing any political standing?
Nothing can be done to repair the lives of the troops involved nor their families.
It is a shame that guidance is given freely by Congress, the American people and the Iraqi people, the international community who was against from the start.
After 3 years, Mr. Bush still has not gained any additional insight other than what he had upon the initial theft of the presidency.
International Taxation
Sneaky Tax Invasion
by T. Grinston
Normally, I have thought that my computer was a private entity. Since, I have no need of any overt actions which may bring attention to myself until this blog. Even then I imagined that unless I publicly declared thoughts and actions, they would remain private.
There is a new program on the market called Xenon. This program allows all personal information to be uncovered and taken. The Xenon program is currently being used by five nations. It actually serves the international governments using it the ability to monitor businesses which may not report all transactions for taxation.
Sweden will implement this particular program for their usage later this year. Sweden is taking its time since it has already implemented a program of its own which serves a similar purpose. While the United States neither denies nor claims to utilize this program.
No longer will anyone's actions remain private if they choose to shop online, visit porn or poker websites. Also, anyone who purchases from an auction may reveal their purchases without being aware of it. This program comes at a particularly inconvenient time.
Considering all of the identity hackers, reissuance of credit cards, cancellations of credit cards, aside from the fact that someone whom you did not give your personal information will gain it anyways, without regard for your privacy. Public outcry may be the reason the United States is not declaring usage of it. What do you think of the all this?
by T. Grinston
Normally, I have thought that my computer was a private entity. Since, I have no need of any overt actions which may bring attention to myself until this blog. Even then I imagined that unless I publicly declared thoughts and actions, they would remain private.
There is a new program on the market called Xenon. This program allows all personal information to be uncovered and taken. The Xenon program is currently being used by five nations. It actually serves the international governments using it the ability to monitor businesses which may not report all transactions for taxation.
Sweden will implement this particular program for their usage later this year. Sweden is taking its time since it has already implemented a program of its own which serves a similar purpose. While the United States neither denies nor claims to utilize this program.
No longer will anyone's actions remain private if they choose to shop online, visit porn or poker websites. Also, anyone who purchases from an auction may reveal their purchases without being aware of it. This program comes at a particularly inconvenient time.
Considering all of the identity hackers, reissuance of credit cards, cancellations of credit cards, aside from the fact that someone whom you did not give your personal information will gain it anyways, without regard for your privacy. Public outcry may be the reason the United States is not declaring usage of it. What do you think of the all this?
Iran installing 3,000 nuclear centrifuges, MP says
Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:41pm ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is installing 3,000 nuclear centrifuges, a senior Iranian member of parliament was quoted as saying on Saturday, defying U.N. calls for Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.
"We are now installing 3,000 centrifuges," Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.
The centrifuges would allow Iran to begin industrial scale of nuclear fuel, which the West fears could lead to atom bombs.
Boroujerdi's remarks followed reports earlier this month from diplomats, who said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had concluded that Iran was ready to start installing the centrifuges.
America is the greatest superpower in the world. Why should we take advantage of the disadvantaged for trying to improve their own country and themselves? At the same time, we are occupying Iraq which had become so pathetic with need of help. Now, we are "helping" Iraq.
During the same occupation, we dare Iran, another country in need of electricity to remain at that level. While we deny Iran the financial resources which had been promised by the United States.
Should third world countries be offered technology to help themselves and stopped from maximizing the ability to use their own knowledge to make their country comfortable? Who gives us the right to become so superior that we shall order them to remain in the dark?
Maybe I am misguided, war seems to strongly exude itself from our wonderful leadership at any cost, regardless of the quality of anyone else's life.
Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:41pm ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is installing 3,000 nuclear centrifuges, a senior Iranian member of parliament was quoted as saying on Saturday, defying U.N. calls for Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.
"We are now installing 3,000 centrifuges," Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.
The centrifuges would allow Iran to begin industrial scale of nuclear fuel, which the West fears could lead to atom bombs.
Boroujerdi's remarks followed reports earlier this month from diplomats, who said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had concluded that Iran was ready to start installing the centrifuges.
America is the greatest superpower in the world. Why should we take advantage of the disadvantaged for trying to improve their own country and themselves? At the same time, we are occupying Iraq which had become so pathetic with need of help. Now, we are "helping" Iraq.
During the same occupation, we dare Iran, another country in need of electricity to remain at that level. While we deny Iran the financial resources which had been promised by the United States.
Should third world countries be offered technology to help themselves and stopped from maximizing the ability to use their own knowledge to make their country comfortable? Who gives us the right to become so superior that we shall order them to remain in the dark?
Maybe I am misguided, war seems to strongly exude itself from our wonderful leadership at any cost, regardless of the quality of anyone else's life.
Russia defends Iran
Russia queries US presence in Mideast: agencies
Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:03pm ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
By Tom Miles
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia expects the United States to explain its growing military presence in the Middle East when the countries next meet to discuss the region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian news agencies on Saturday.
"I have seen no change in Washington's fairly aggressive rhetoric," Lavrov said.
"It continues, just like its actions to increase the military presence in the region. It will be one of the questions which we want to clarify in Washington. What's it all about?"
Lavrov is expected to attend a meeting of the so-called Quartet of international mediators in Washington on February 2 to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. Russia, the United States, EU and United Nations make up the Quartet.
The United States is in the process of sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, which it invaded in 2003, in an effort to quell an insurgency. It already has 134,000 troops in Iraq.
Washington has said it is deploying a second aircraft carrier group in the Gulf as well as Patriot missile defense systems -- steps widely seen as a warning to Iran and Syria.
The United States, which has accused Iran and Syria of being destabilizing influences in the region, maintains a significant military presence in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, base for the U.S. Navy's Fifth fleet.
Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Is this not an odd predicament for the United States? What became of the bargaining chips we had from conducting ourselves in an admirable political stance? Have we used them all defending Israel? Or does the goodwill in Iraq speak for itself? This shall be an interesting development considering the controversy surrounding the country and the "real" issues which shall hopefully be displayed to the international community during this meeting. What do you think about it? Let me know.
Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:03pm ET
Email This Article Print This Article Reprints
[-] Text [+]
By Tom Miles
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia expects the United States to explain its growing military presence in the Middle East when the countries next meet to discuss the region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian news agencies on Saturday.
"I have seen no change in Washington's fairly aggressive rhetoric," Lavrov said.
"It continues, just like its actions to increase the military presence in the region. It will be one of the questions which we want to clarify in Washington. What's it all about?"
Lavrov is expected to attend a meeting of the so-called Quartet of international mediators in Washington on February 2 to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. Russia, the United States, EU and United Nations make up the Quartet.
The United States is in the process of sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, which it invaded in 2003, in an effort to quell an insurgency. It already has 134,000 troops in Iraq.
Washington has said it is deploying a second aircraft carrier group in the Gulf as well as Patriot missile defense systems -- steps widely seen as a warning to Iran and Syria.
The United States, which has accused Iran and Syria of being destabilizing influences in the region, maintains a significant military presence in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, base for the U.S. Navy's Fifth fleet.
Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Is this not an odd predicament for the United States? What became of the bargaining chips we had from conducting ourselves in an admirable political stance? Have we used them all defending Israel? Or does the goodwill in Iraq speak for itself? This shall be an interesting development considering the controversy surrounding the country and the "real" issues which shall hopefully be displayed to the international community during this meeting. What do you think about it? Let me know.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Pelosi urges political reconciliation in suprise Iraq visit
Jan 26 10:06 PM US/Eastern
The new Democrat speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, made a surprise visit to Baghdad where she urged Iraqi leaders to pursue political solutions to end spiraling sectarian violence.
But US and Iraqi officials announced tough new tactics to starve sectarian violence of outside support with US forces now targeting Iranian agents in Iraq for capture or killing.
Despite US and Iraqi efforts to increase security in the capital, bombers on Friday killed 15 people in Baghdad's famous pet market.
Pelosi, 66, the first female Speaker of the House who is known for her strong anti-war stance, arrived in Baghdad along with several other senior Democratic lawmakers.
Pelosi is the spearhead of Democratic opposition to US President George W. Bush, who asked critics of his new Iraqi strategy Tuesday to "give it a chance."
But in meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US officials she advocated the Iraqis reaching political solutions rather than relying on a surge in US troops to end sectarian violence.
"The sooner Iraqi leaders make necessary political accommodations, including amending their constitution to resolve outstanding differences among all Iraqi communities, the better the chances for ending the sectarian violence," the lawmakers said in a statement released by Pelosi's office after the meetings.
They said that in their meetings they stressed their belief that Iraqis must take "primary responsibility" for the country's security.
"The delegation's view is that American forces should quickly begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counter-terrorism, force protection, and controlling Iraq's borders."
Maliki assured Pelosi the that Baghdad was determined "to assume security missions currently handled by US-led forces in Iraq," but asked that the training and equipping of Iraqi forces with modern weapons be speeded up, a statement from his office said.
The California Democrat is second in line to assume the US presidency, behind Vice President Dick Cheney.
The US Senate, meanwhile, confirmed Friday Lieutenant General David Petraeus as the new commander of US forces in Iraq, replacing General George Casey.
Bush said on Friday he had issued orders to confront those who target Iraqis or US forces in Iraq, as US and Iraqi officials confirmed tough new tactics against Iranian agents there.
"If somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, we will stop them," Bush said.
At the same time, Bush said as he met with Petraeus that it would be wrong to think that such efforts mean a coming war with Iran.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington had made clear it fears that Iran was supplying Shiite Iraqi insurgents with technology to make sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to attack US forces.
"We have every right to go after those Iranian paramilitary intelligence agents engaged in this activity inside Iraq," Burns told reporters.
In Baghdad, Maliki outlined to Pelosi his plan to quell violence in Baghdad, a necessity underscored by the bombing earlier Friday of the Al-Ghazil market that killed 15 people, the latest in a bombing spree targeting shopping areas that has killed more than 150 people this week.
The bombing was another gruesome example of the current trend followed by insurgents to attack markets to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
Elsewhere on Friday, five more Iraqis were killed in violence, while police in Baghdad discovered 27 bodies bearing bullet wounds.
"The prime minister underscored his government's determination to deal with terrorist groups. This confrontation will not be based solely on military force however, but also on political means," Maliki's office said.
US and Iraqi authorities stress their new security plan will target militiamen involved in sectarian killing, and its focus was expected to be the Mahdi Army, the armed unit headed by anti-US Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
All of this reminds me of grade school where the teacher quizzed all of the students on our addition tables. Should you decide to add all of the articles pertaining to Iran in any particular order the common denominator from the United States would be violence, as far as our wonderful leader is concerned. Violence begets violence. It gives new meaning to the persona of our illustrious leader of the "United" States. When is enough of bullying enough. There is not going to be any redemption for America in the eyes of the international community should the plotted path be allowed to make any more gains. However, our republican leader is nothing if not headstrong and "intelligent". How many times must the same mistake be made in order to regain equilibrium? Balance is a delicate action which is essential to any meaningful dialogue with anyone even family members. Although, it is dependent upon the role models on which you choose to uphold. Well, I guess the Katrina comment by the maternal role model displayed a great deal of the delicacy of manners our "chosen" leader was exposed to during childhood. Why should anyone expect him to outshine his own guidance? Pelosi is trying to ensure that the divided factions realize that working together would allow Iraq to become self-sufficient and head towards greater strides as a whole nation. If I can remember correctly, this was one of the main issues regarding the aftermath of the brief war. Now, civil war reigns supreme. Partly due to conditions being worse than when Saddam was reigning. There is so much division and chaos, it shall be interesting to see if the Iraqi people can learn to trust again.
Jan 26 10:06 PM US/Eastern
The new Democrat speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, made a surprise visit to Baghdad where she urged Iraqi leaders to pursue political solutions to end spiraling sectarian violence.
But US and Iraqi officials announced tough new tactics to starve sectarian violence of outside support with US forces now targeting Iranian agents in Iraq for capture or killing.
Despite US and Iraqi efforts to increase security in the capital, bombers on Friday killed 15 people in Baghdad's famous pet market.
Pelosi, 66, the first female Speaker of the House who is known for her strong anti-war stance, arrived in Baghdad along with several other senior Democratic lawmakers.
Pelosi is the spearhead of Democratic opposition to US President George W. Bush, who asked critics of his new Iraqi strategy Tuesday to "give it a chance."
But in meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US officials she advocated the Iraqis reaching political solutions rather than relying on a surge in US troops to end sectarian violence.
"The sooner Iraqi leaders make necessary political accommodations, including amending their constitution to resolve outstanding differences among all Iraqi communities, the better the chances for ending the sectarian violence," the lawmakers said in a statement released by Pelosi's office after the meetings.
They said that in their meetings they stressed their belief that Iraqis must take "primary responsibility" for the country's security.
"The delegation's view is that American forces should quickly begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counter-terrorism, force protection, and controlling Iraq's borders."
Maliki assured Pelosi the that Baghdad was determined "to assume security missions currently handled by US-led forces in Iraq," but asked that the training and equipping of Iraqi forces with modern weapons be speeded up, a statement from his office said.
The California Democrat is second in line to assume the US presidency, behind Vice President Dick Cheney.
The US Senate, meanwhile, confirmed Friday Lieutenant General David Petraeus as the new commander of US forces in Iraq, replacing General George Casey.
Bush said on Friday he had issued orders to confront those who target Iraqis or US forces in Iraq, as US and Iraqi officials confirmed tough new tactics against Iranian agents there.
"If somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, we will stop them," Bush said.
At the same time, Bush said as he met with Petraeus that it would be wrong to think that such efforts mean a coming war with Iran.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington had made clear it fears that Iran was supplying Shiite Iraqi insurgents with technology to make sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to attack US forces.
"We have every right to go after those Iranian paramilitary intelligence agents engaged in this activity inside Iraq," Burns told reporters.
In Baghdad, Maliki outlined to Pelosi his plan to quell violence in Baghdad, a necessity underscored by the bombing earlier Friday of the Al-Ghazil market that killed 15 people, the latest in a bombing spree targeting shopping areas that has killed more than 150 people this week.
The bombing was another gruesome example of the current trend followed by insurgents to attack markets to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
Elsewhere on Friday, five more Iraqis were killed in violence, while police in Baghdad discovered 27 bodies bearing bullet wounds.
"The prime minister underscored his government's determination to deal with terrorist groups. This confrontation will not be based solely on military force however, but also on political means," Maliki's office said.
US and Iraqi authorities stress their new security plan will target militiamen involved in sectarian killing, and its focus was expected to be the Mahdi Army, the armed unit headed by anti-US Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
All of this reminds me of grade school where the teacher quizzed all of the students on our addition tables. Should you decide to add all of the articles pertaining to Iran in any particular order the common denominator from the United States would be violence, as far as our wonderful leader is concerned. Violence begets violence. It gives new meaning to the persona of our illustrious leader of the "United" States. When is enough of bullying enough. There is not going to be any redemption for America in the eyes of the international community should the plotted path be allowed to make any more gains. However, our republican leader is nothing if not headstrong and "intelligent". How many times must the same mistake be made in order to regain equilibrium? Balance is a delicate action which is essential to any meaningful dialogue with anyone even family members. Although, it is dependent upon the role models on which you choose to uphold. Well, I guess the Katrina comment by the maternal role model displayed a great deal of the delicacy of manners our "chosen" leader was exposed to during childhood. Why should anyone expect him to outshine his own guidance? Pelosi is trying to ensure that the divided factions realize that working together would allow Iraq to become self-sufficient and head towards greater strides as a whole nation. If I can remember correctly, this was one of the main issues regarding the aftermath of the brief war. Now, civil war reigns supreme. Partly due to conditions being worse than when Saddam was reigning. There is so much division and chaos, it shall be interesting to see if the Iraqi people can learn to trust again.
Iran's International Dilemma
UN nuclear chief calls for 'timeout' over Iran
Jan 26 9:19 PM US/Eastern
The United Nations nuclear chief has called for a "timeout" in the showdown over Iran's nuclear ambitions, with the UN suspending sanctions and Tehran halting uranium enrichment at the same time.
"Iran should stop enriching uranium and the international community should take a timeout from implementing sanctions," Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in Switzerland.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, ElBaradei proposed a face-saving solution in which the two steps take place simultaneously instead of in sequence.
He added that an escalation of the crisis, and possible war, must be avoided, in comments reported to AFP at IAEA headquarters in Vienna.
"We need to reverse course because we are heading into a crash course," ElBaradei told reporters. "The idea that there's a military solution is absolutely bonkers."
The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions to get Iran to stop uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also the explosive core of atom bombs.
Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity but the United States claims Tehran is hiding work on developing atomic weapons.
The Security Council has said that if Iran freezes enrichment, then sanctions could be lifted.
But Iran is planning to increase its enrichment capacity by installing 3,000 centrifuges, the machines which enrich uranium, at an underground facility in Natanz, where it is already running two pilot cascades of 164-centrifuges each at a pilot site above-ground.
ElBaradei is to report to the Security Council by February 21 on whether Iran has suspended enrichment.
If it has not, sanctions could be tightened and there is increased speculation that either the United States or Israel could eventually decide to bomb Iran in order to stop it from making nuclear weapons.
The United States kept up the pressure on Tehran on Friday, warning of "universal" opposition and more international pressure if it proceeds with plans to installing 3,000 centrifuges.
"This would be a major miscalculation and mistake by the Iranian government," US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington. "If Iran takes this step, it is going to confront universal international opposition.
"And if they think that they can get away with 3,000 centrifuges without another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure then they're very badly mistaken," Burns said.
ElBaradei has repeatedly said the crisis must be resolved through negotiation, with Iran guaranteeing that it is not an atom bomb threat and the West taking into consideration Tehran's legitimate security concerns.
ElBaradei said Friday: "There is no reason for Iran to feed nuclear material into enrichment cascades. They can take time out to build confidence.
"We have three to eight years (before Iran can build an atom bomb), which gives us a lot of time to reflect."
Iran's face-off with the IAEA went up a notch this week when the agency sharply answered Iran, asking it in a letter to reverse its ban on 38 IAEA inspectors from working in the country, a spokeswoman told AFP.
A diplomat said the IAEA was "pushing back" as "no country has ever de-designated so many inspectors in one go."
The strong IAEA response came even as Iran sent a letter of its own to the agency asking for the removal of the official overseeing the IAEA's inspection of the Iranian nuclear program, diplomats told AFP.
Iran had banned Christian Charlier, who is Belgian, last April from entering the country in retaliation for alleged leaks to the press.
Iran now wants Charlier no longer even to see reports on Iran at the agency's safeguards division, a diplomat said.
But IAEA officials told Iran that while it "has the right not to give visas, the IAEA decides what it does in Vienna," the diplomat said.
The United States on Friday called Tehran's attempt to get Charlier removed "outrageous."
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Iran's action "inspector shopping" and "indicative of their continued defiance."
"And this is not what the international system is looking for or, frankly, what it was hoping for in terms of Iranian behavior," he said.
This is actually some long awaited news. There are some who have ascertained that our great leader has been contemplating numerous maneuvers to incur this particular stance for Iran within the international community. There is not any instrument which can accurately measure the elation this situation must give the great leaders of our nation who have been steadily heading towards this path.
Now, that the batter is up, what shall happen to Iran in particular? Also, how will our great leader incur international wrath during this point of our extended military? Do you believe this particular endeavor will become the victory that Iraq is not? Let me know what you think of this.
Jan 26 9:19 PM US/Eastern
The United Nations nuclear chief has called for a "timeout" in the showdown over Iran's nuclear ambitions, with the UN suspending sanctions and Tehran halting uranium enrichment at the same time.
"Iran should stop enriching uranium and the international community should take a timeout from implementing sanctions," Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in Switzerland.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, ElBaradei proposed a face-saving solution in which the two steps take place simultaneously instead of in sequence.
He added that an escalation of the crisis, and possible war, must be avoided, in comments reported to AFP at IAEA headquarters in Vienna.
"We need to reverse course because we are heading into a crash course," ElBaradei told reporters. "The idea that there's a military solution is absolutely bonkers."
The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions to get Iran to stop uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also the explosive core of atom bombs.
Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity but the United States claims Tehran is hiding work on developing atomic weapons.
The Security Council has said that if Iran freezes enrichment, then sanctions could be lifted.
But Iran is planning to increase its enrichment capacity by installing 3,000 centrifuges, the machines which enrich uranium, at an underground facility in Natanz, where it is already running two pilot cascades of 164-centrifuges each at a pilot site above-ground.
ElBaradei is to report to the Security Council by February 21 on whether Iran has suspended enrichment.
If it has not, sanctions could be tightened and there is increased speculation that either the United States or Israel could eventually decide to bomb Iran in order to stop it from making nuclear weapons.
The United States kept up the pressure on Tehran on Friday, warning of "universal" opposition and more international pressure if it proceeds with plans to installing 3,000 centrifuges.
"This would be a major miscalculation and mistake by the Iranian government," US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington. "If Iran takes this step, it is going to confront universal international opposition.
"And if they think that they can get away with 3,000 centrifuges without another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure then they're very badly mistaken," Burns said.
ElBaradei has repeatedly said the crisis must be resolved through negotiation, with Iran guaranteeing that it is not an atom bomb threat and the West taking into consideration Tehran's legitimate security concerns.
ElBaradei said Friday: "There is no reason for Iran to feed nuclear material into enrichment cascades. They can take time out to build confidence.
"We have three to eight years (before Iran can build an atom bomb), which gives us a lot of time to reflect."
Iran's face-off with the IAEA went up a notch this week when the agency sharply answered Iran, asking it in a letter to reverse its ban on 38 IAEA inspectors from working in the country, a spokeswoman told AFP.
A diplomat said the IAEA was "pushing back" as "no country has ever de-designated so many inspectors in one go."
The strong IAEA response came even as Iran sent a letter of its own to the agency asking for the removal of the official overseeing the IAEA's inspection of the Iranian nuclear program, diplomats told AFP.
Iran had banned Christian Charlier, who is Belgian, last April from entering the country in retaliation for alleged leaks to the press.
Iran now wants Charlier no longer even to see reports on Iran at the agency's safeguards division, a diplomat said.
But IAEA officials told Iran that while it "has the right not to give visas, the IAEA decides what it does in Vienna," the diplomat said.
The United States on Friday called Tehran's attempt to get Charlier removed "outrageous."
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Iran's action "inspector shopping" and "indicative of their continued defiance."
"And this is not what the international system is looking for or, frankly, what it was hoping for in terms of Iranian behavior," he said.
This is actually some long awaited news. There are some who have ascertained that our great leader has been contemplating numerous maneuvers to incur this particular stance for Iran within the international community. There is not any instrument which can accurately measure the elation this situation must give the great leaders of our nation who have been steadily heading towards this path.
Now, that the batter is up, what shall happen to Iran in particular? Also, how will our great leader incur international wrath during this point of our extended military? Do you believe this particular endeavor will become the victory that Iraq is not? Let me know what you think of this.
Mississippi Katrina Victims
Judge Balks at State Farm Katrina Deal
Jan 26 9:13 PM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN Associated Press Writer
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A federal judge in Mississippi on Friday refused to endorse part of a proposed settlement that calls for insurance payments to thousands of Mississippi policyholders whose homes were destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. would not sign off on a deal between State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood for at least $50 million in payments to policyholders whose claims were denied but didn't sue the company.
The Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer also had agreed to pay about $80 million to more than 600 policyholders who sued the company for refusing to cover damage from the Aug. 29, 2005, storm. Senter hasn't been asked to sign off on that part of the deal.
Senter said he doesn't have enough information to determine how many policyholders would benefit from the deal or how much each can be paid.
"In the absence of substantially more information than I now have before me, I am unable to say, even preliminarily, that the proposed settlement establishes a procedure that is fair, just, balanced or reasonable," he wrote.
Senter rejected the settlement "without prejudice," allowing lawyers to present a new agreement that satisfies his concerns.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company looks forward to "addressing Judge Senter's concerns," adding, "We believe, given the opportunity, he will come to view the proposed settlement as fair, just, balanced and reasonable."
Hood, in a written statement, said State Farm and plaintiffs' lawyers were responsible for negotiating the terms of the "class action" portion of the settlement. Hood added that he had "reservations" about that part of the deal.
"Nevertheless, I knew that Judge Senter would make sure that the class was a fair procedure for all," he added. "I am confident that Judge Senter will make the plaintiffs and State Farm fix the problems he has raised in his order."
Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, a lawyer for the 639 policyholders who have settled their lawsuits with State Farm, said Senter's ruling shouldn't have any affect on the company's settlements with his clients. Scruggs said he expects to begin making payments to his clients next week.
"Case by case, litigation over many years is in nobody's best interest," Scruggs said. "It's our hope that we can quickly address the judge's concerns."
In his eight-page ruling Friday, Senter said that although State Farm has agreed to pay $50 million to policyholders who qualify for the class action portion of the settlement, he can't determine "how thinly this large sum may be spread among the class members."
Senter also expressed concern about a lack of any "guaranteed" payments to policyholders whose homes weren't completely destroyed and said he is "uncomfortable" with allowing many cases to be settled by binding arbitration "when none of these individuals has ever agreed to participate in that procedure."
Mississippi's mass settlement agreement didn't involve any claims in other states.
Lawyers involved in the agreement presented the "class action" portion of the deal to Senter on Tuesday afternoon.
That part of the agreement would require State Farm to reopen and review claims filed by roughly 35,000 policyholders who live in Mississippi's three coastal counties but didn't file lawsuits against State Farm.
After reviewing those claims, the company would be required to make new offers. Any disputes would be heard by an arbitrator whose decision would be binding.
The accord came less than two weeks after a federal jury in Gulfport awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a couple who sued State Farm for denying their claim after Katrina. Senter took part of that case out of jurors' hands, ruling that State Farm is liable for $223,292 in storm damage to the Biloxi home of Norman and Genevieve Broussard.
Senter is the only federal judge in Mississippi who has been presiding over the hundreds of lawsuits that policyholders filed against State Farm and other insurers.
In the first trial for a Katrina insurance case, Senter ruled in August that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.'s homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not storm surge. He also has ordered dozens of policyholders who sued their insurers to participate in an experimental mediation program.
Now, this seems to be an interesting perspective taken by Judge Senter. What possible reasons could exist for his denial of a proposed settlement? Is the logic behind the settlement or the insurance companies? It may be possible that parts equate to the whole solution which he concluded. Hopefully, I can be forgiven my presumption of questioning the dozens of policyholders which the judge sought to have mandatory mediaton. Is this not somewhat in the area of arbitration which he stated he is "uncomfortable" ordering arbitration for people who did not voluntarily choose to participate. Now, clarification of these two particular words may be a technical discrepancy, but they seem to be in the same ballfield. How is the situation true in one case and unnecessary in another. All of this within a two week time span. I am absolutely sure that I am missing something. Why do the Katrina victims seem to have such difficulty?
Jan 26 9:13 PM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN Associated Press Writer
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A federal judge in Mississippi on Friday refused to endorse part of a proposed settlement that calls for insurance payments to thousands of Mississippi policyholders whose homes were destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. would not sign off on a deal between State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood for at least $50 million in payments to policyholders whose claims were denied but didn't sue the company.
The Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer also had agreed to pay about $80 million to more than 600 policyholders who sued the company for refusing to cover damage from the Aug. 29, 2005, storm. Senter hasn't been asked to sign off on that part of the deal.
Senter said he doesn't have enough information to determine how many policyholders would benefit from the deal or how much each can be paid.
"In the absence of substantially more information than I now have before me, I am unable to say, even preliminarily, that the proposed settlement establishes a procedure that is fair, just, balanced or reasonable," he wrote.
Senter rejected the settlement "without prejudice," allowing lawyers to present a new agreement that satisfies his concerns.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company looks forward to "addressing Judge Senter's concerns," adding, "We believe, given the opportunity, he will come to view the proposed settlement as fair, just, balanced and reasonable."
Hood, in a written statement, said State Farm and plaintiffs' lawyers were responsible for negotiating the terms of the "class action" portion of the settlement. Hood added that he had "reservations" about that part of the deal.
"Nevertheless, I knew that Judge Senter would make sure that the class was a fair procedure for all," he added. "I am confident that Judge Senter will make the plaintiffs and State Farm fix the problems he has raised in his order."
Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, a lawyer for the 639 policyholders who have settled their lawsuits with State Farm, said Senter's ruling shouldn't have any affect on the company's settlements with his clients. Scruggs said he expects to begin making payments to his clients next week.
"Case by case, litigation over many years is in nobody's best interest," Scruggs said. "It's our hope that we can quickly address the judge's concerns."
In his eight-page ruling Friday, Senter said that although State Farm has agreed to pay $50 million to policyholders who qualify for the class action portion of the settlement, he can't determine "how thinly this large sum may be spread among the class members."
Senter also expressed concern about a lack of any "guaranteed" payments to policyholders whose homes weren't completely destroyed and said he is "uncomfortable" with allowing many cases to be settled by binding arbitration "when none of these individuals has ever agreed to participate in that procedure."
Mississippi's mass settlement agreement didn't involve any claims in other states.
Lawyers involved in the agreement presented the "class action" portion of the deal to Senter on Tuesday afternoon.
That part of the agreement would require State Farm to reopen and review claims filed by roughly 35,000 policyholders who live in Mississippi's three coastal counties but didn't file lawsuits against State Farm.
After reviewing those claims, the company would be required to make new offers. Any disputes would be heard by an arbitrator whose decision would be binding.
The accord came less than two weeks after a federal jury in Gulfport awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a couple who sued State Farm for denying their claim after Katrina. Senter took part of that case out of jurors' hands, ruling that State Farm is liable for $223,292 in storm damage to the Biloxi home of Norman and Genevieve Broussard.
Senter is the only federal judge in Mississippi who has been presiding over the hundreds of lawsuits that policyholders filed against State Farm and other insurers.
In the first trial for a Katrina insurance case, Senter ruled in August that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.'s homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not storm surge. He also has ordered dozens of policyholders who sued their insurers to participate in an experimental mediation program.
Now, this seems to be an interesting perspective taken by Judge Senter. What possible reasons could exist for his denial of a proposed settlement? Is the logic behind the settlement or the insurance companies? It may be possible that parts equate to the whole solution which he concluded. Hopefully, I can be forgiven my presumption of questioning the dozens of policyholders which the judge sought to have mandatory mediaton. Is this not somewhat in the area of arbitration which he stated he is "uncomfortable" ordering arbitration for people who did not voluntarily choose to participate. Now, clarification of these two particular words may be a technical discrepancy, but they seem to be in the same ballfield. How is the situation true in one case and unnecessary in another. All of this within a two week time span. I am absolutely sure that I am missing something. Why do the Katrina victims seem to have such difficulty?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)