Goldman Sachs wants to shut down this blog.

Posted by: b | Apr 11 2009 9:54 utc | 4

Egypt and Hezbollah The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Intersting interview about Jiverly Voong.

Posted by: andrew | Apr 11 2009 11:02 utc | 6

Corruption undercuts hopes for Afghan police.
Obama’s Afghanistan plan and India-Pakistan relations:

It cannot be forgotten that although the US entered Afghanistan in 2001, India (with Iran and Russia) and Pakistan had been fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan throughout the previous decade; the former supporting the Tajik-dominated ‘Northern Alliance,’ while the latter backed the Pashtun Taliban. This conflict was practically won by Pakistan-backed forces, when the US charged into the region and placed the Northern Alliance in power. The US presence post-9/11, certainly changed the equation, but did not end the proxy war. Thus, the ‘legitimate security needs’ of which Gregory speaks arise from what fellow contributor Aqil Shah – a Rhodes scholar and PhD candidate in political science at Columbia University – identified as the Pakistan army’s “fear that the United States could simply lose interest in Afghanistan once it captures the senior leadership of al Qaeda (as Washington did after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan), leaving Pakistan exposed to Indian (and Russian) ‘encirclement’ — evidence of which it sees in New Delhi’s alleged support for the insurgency in Pakistan’s resource-rich Baluchistan province and Indian funding for a 135-mile road connecting Afghanistan’s Nimroz province with the Iranian port of Chabahar.”
[…]
Of all the confidence building measures undertaken and treaties signed between India and Pakistan over the decades, the Indus Water Treaty has been most crucial to stability and so, the most enduring. Yet, this pillar of Indo-Pak entente has been under threat for the last two decade, or so. The first rumblings of change came in 1984, when Indian forces took advantage of Pakistan distraction with the US-backed ‘jihad’ against the Soviets in Afghanistan, to push beyond the 1949 ‘Line of Control’ that separates Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir and seize the Siachen Glacier, whose run-off feeds (through tributaries) into the Indus River. Since then, Siachen has become known as the ‘world’s highest battlefield’, and hostilities there contributed to everything from Pakistan backing armed insurgents in Indian-administered Kashmir from 1989, to Pakistani troop involvement in the Kargil Conflict of 1999, bringing South Asia to the brink of nuclear war, while the US withdrew from the region following the defeat of the Soviets. None of these Pakistani moves, however, have succeeded in wresting back control of Siachen, let alone pushing India to negotiate an end to the broader dispute. Rather, they have led Indian forces into a counter-insurgency campaign that international human rights organizations calculate has cost the lives of 80,000 to 100,000 civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir, as well as routine ‘disappearances’, ‘rapes’ and ‘torture’. As if this mix was not toxic enough, in 2000, India also announced plans to dam the Chelum River, stirring the Kashmiri cauldron further. Although India claimed that the hydro-electric project was necessary for the development of Kashmir, Pakistan argued that it was a clear violation of the Indus Water Treaty. Thus, Pakistan raised objections with the Permanent Indus Commission soon after work on the ‘Baglihar Dam Project’ was initiated in 2000, but under the auspices of the World Bank, the Pakistani case was overruled in 2007, without a word from the recently re-engaged US. India was merely required to lower the height of the dam by 1.5 meters. Under such circumstances, work on the dam was revitalized and, in 2008, it was inaugurated by Prime Minister Singh, despite protests from independent geologists (who warn that it lies on a fault-line) and unrelenting objections from Islamabad on the basis of the Indus Water Treaty.
Adding the issue of water rights to the Kashmir dispute only goes to prove the difficulties involved in bringing about any form of ‘quick-fix’. However, the elemental nature of water also best highlights the fact that from Pakistan’s vantage-point, the state’s ‘very existence’ is not dependent on al-Qaida, Taliban or even the US, but on who governs Kashmir and under what terms. Thus, when added to Indian activities in Afghanistan, it is easy to see why the majority of contributors to the previously cited roundtable discussion hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations argued that addressing ‘Pakistan’s legitimate security needs’ vis-à-vis India, is an essential component of any plan ‘seeking greater stability in the region, or seeking to wean Pakistan off support for extremists and terrorists’.

Posted by: andrew | Apr 11 2009 11:34 utc | 8

Juannie- It worked for me. Interesting stuff.

Posted by: DavidS | Apr 11 2009 14:14 utc | 10

Thanks DavidS & lambent1. Now it’s working for me as well.
Yeah, strange stuff but good link. I’m glad I asked and came back to view it.

Posted by: Juannie | Apr 11 2009 16:27 utc | 12

that slate article was so full of holes i could drive a truck thru it. it is a fantasy to imagine israel bombing iran would solve any problems or that israel would trade a pal state for it, regardless of any carrot dangling. total BS.

Posted by: annie | Apr 11 2009 19:40 utc | 14

roads to iraq is not there any more. this is horrid.
Roads to Iraq doesn’t Exist
Sorry for the inconvenience.
i have it toolbarred. what is going on..badger stopped posting couple weeks ago…this is horrid.

Posted by: annie | Apr 11 2009 20:35 utc | 16

In – He Wants To Stay … proof there were no WMDs: http://cryptome.info/0001/iraq-ffcd.htm … an interesting read, too bad the PDF is unscannable by Google-bots, but since it contains recipes for CBSs, we’re probably better off, although Darwin’s Law being what it is, any fool trying will likely off themselves, just like this duffus: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=56603&big=2x

Posted by: Succeed Secede | Apr 11 2009 21:19 utc | 18

Arnold, I thought it was a very mature piece, though so apologetic that I thought you were going to burst at the seams trying not to offend anyone! Just 3 points I´d like to make:
1. There is a fine but crucial distinction between the Israel Lobby and other U.S. lobbies insofar as the other lobbies place joint personal interests before the national interest, while the Israel Lobby places Israel´s interests before the U.S.A.´s, which amounts to treason. (Larry Franklin serving a 22-year sentence for spying for Israel from within the heart of the Pentagon).
2. You didn´t mention the admirable J Street, the Jewish counter-lobby that is rapidly gaining popularity and influence.
3. The Israel Lobby´s credibility, and therefore its power, suffered immeasurably under 8 years of Bush, culminating in official silence over the Gaza atrocities which Bush actually encouraged to widespread media condemnation. Obama´s grovelling before AIPAC was greeted with scorn in the U.S. media, to an extent that would have been unimaginable 8 years ago.
It´s not the same Lobby it was 8 years ago, not even close. And Israel now has to contend with the Blogosphere …
Rupert Murdoch doesn´t own the airwaves. We do.

Posted by: Parviz | Apr 12 2009 6:52 utc | 20

Once the anti-Semitism charge gets up a head of steam, it takes a life of its own. It’s better to deal with it pre-emptively. The fact of the matter is Israel is really an emotional issue for many Jews, to a degree that many those Jews do not even understand. I try to take that into account. But I don’t want my tone to be overly subservient. I’ll look out for that.
Treason: The people of the US decide what the US’ interests are. If the US democratic process decides to put Israel’s material interests before the US’ material interests, then by that decision, Israel’s materials interests are the US’ interests. What I’m saying is that support for Israel is accomplished through a reasonably democratic process so even though it “objectively” in some sense compromises US interests, it isn’t treason because it is more or less what the people of the US, through their democratic process chose. Trying again, nothing the US political process comes up with can be treason against the US by definition.
J Street: Is a reformed Zionist lobby. Meaning it is pressing for a two state solution, and it measures policies not on the basis of equality of justice, but on its impact on a potential two state solution. It opposes the West Bank settlements, but has no problem starving the people of Gaza for voting for a party that opposes two states. It is a different wing of the Zionist lobby than AIPAC, but it is part of the same project.
Decline of the Lobby: Your lips to God’s ears. The pro-Israel still has many of the formidable advantages I mention in the article though.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Apr 12 2009 15:57 utc | 22

parvis, By the way, you talk of Arabs´ hatred of Iran, but I think you should also distinguish between the views of Arab governments and the views of ordinary Arab people
i don’t recall talking of arab hatred although i do read layla anbar. i think therir are probably quite a few iraqi arabs who are not fans of iran, but then many who are.
arnold What I’m saying is that support for Israel is accomplished through a reasonably democratic process
yes, well banks were deregulated via lobbiests too, doesn’t make it reasonable or democratic.
there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
when i have the same access to my congress person as $$$$ lobbiests do, then let’s talk about it.
If the US democratic process decides to put Israel’s material interests before the US’ material interests, then by that decision, Israel’s materials interests are the US’ interests.
really? If the US democratic process decides to torture people, then by that decision, torture is in the US’ interests?
If the US democratic process decides to invade iraq, then by that decision, invading iraq is in the US’ interests?
If the US democratic process isn’t, in reality, very democratic, then the process might just not be in the interest of the people.

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2009 0:30 utc | 24