Approximately 3 in every 4 pet owners speak with a silly voice when talking to their pets.
Fri 29 Feb 2008
Casualty Rates Of Some Units In Afghanistan Comparable To Those In The Second World War
Casualties rise with no end to bloody conflict The conflict in Afghanistan has been bitter and bloody, with casualty rates in some units comparable to those in the Second World War Since British forces deployed in October 2001, 89 British forces personnel or Ministry of Defence civilians have been killed – 63 in action and 26 as a result of illness or injury. The majority have come since forces deployed to Helmand province in May 2006 to fight Taliban insurgents. In one four-month period last year, one in two British soldiers on the front line was wounded. Within a month, coalition forces had taken Kabul, the capital. Shortly afterwards, they took Kandahar and the Taliban began to collapse. Remaining militants retreated to the caves of the Tora Bora region, but there was no sign of bin Laden. Since 2006, attacks on British forces have increased, leading to a sharp rise in casualties. The beginning of 2007 saw a renewed coalition offensive as the Government announced it would increase the number of British troops in the country to 7,700. They are committed to stay until at least next year. Much of the attention is focused on the south of the country, allowing Taliban forces to increase in the north. By the end of last year, Taliban forces were thought to number about 10,000, with 2,000-3,000 hardcore insurgents. Senior Taliban are now talking about attempting to retake Kabul, showing that there is no end to the conflict in sight, and indicating that the casualty rate will continue to rise. Opinion polls in Britain and America suggest support for the war has dropped sharply since it began.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/nharry329.xml
Points to debate:
(a) Should Prince Harry be on the front line?
(b) Yes — That’s how they earned their throne a few hundred years ago.
It’s Time The Conspiracy Theorists Accepted That Oil Had Nothing To Do With The U.S. Invasion Of Afghanistan
After almost every article I have written about Afghanistan, the words “oil” and “pipeline” have appeared in the comments box. Often they are in one of the first responses, and sometimes they are practically the only words used – as if the commenter had glanced at the headline and rushed to click the “post your comments” button without bothering to read anything else. According to this theory, the US did not intervene in Afghanistan in response to the attacks of September 11 2001, but at the behest of the oil company Unocal in order to facilitate the building of a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. Some accounts say the Taliban met representatives of the US government a month before the 9/11 attacks and were offered the choice between the pipeline, and diplomatic recognition or military attack. Of course, if you really do believe that the “pipeline project” was “the main reason for the invasion and occupation”, then all other discussion becomes superfluous. But, even on its own terms, the theory makes absolutely no sense. It is true that Unocal, for which Karzai never worked, was interested in building a pipeline in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s. And a case can be made that the Clinton administration was prepared to overlook the Taliban’s appalling human rights record, at this time because it hoped that the stability this might bring to the country could facilitate the project. But where is this pipeline? Fahrenheit 9/11 shows footage of a pipeline being laid, but this certainly is not the pipeline in question since, to date, no western company has shown any interest in building one. Unocal shut down its office in Turkmenistan in 1998 and says it has no plans to return to the region. The north and central regions of the country, through which any proposed pipeline would have to be built, remain largely in the hands of warlords who have closer ties to Russia, Iran, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan than they do to the west. The fact that the US armed these forces and provided them with logistical support against the Taliban also flies against the “pipeline project” theory. I remain unconvinced by the claims of the supporters of the “pipeline project”. But before I get accused of being a “CIA agent”, an antisemite or a “Zionist media whore”, let me make it clear that I am perfectly prepared to accept the sincerity of those who argue the case. If they are right, it would have very significant implications for the analysis of western policy, and this makes it worth subjecting their claims to some scrutiny.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2008/02/dude_wheres_the_pipeline_1.html
Haecus: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#1
(several other documents are available in the event of debate)
“It’s Time The Conspiracy Theorists Accepted That Oil Had Nothing To Do With The U.S. Invasion Of Afghanistan”
First point to debate:
Is it time to accept that oil had something to do with the invasion of Iraq?
The Iraq War Will Cost Americans Between $3 Trillion And $5 Trillion — There Is No Such Thing As A Free War
Including military spending, broader economic costs and decades of benefits and medical care for combat veterans, a Nobel prize-winning economist told the Joint Economic Committee on Thursday. The upper end of the estimate is nearly double what the same economist, Joseph Stiglitz, projected two years ago. He attributed the dramatic increase to the continuing intensity of the war, which began five years ago next month, and the likelihood that operations there would continue for at least another year. The war’s gravest toll has been paid in blood. Fighting in Iraq has so far taken the lives of 3,973 U.S. troops and left nearly 29,300 wounded. Its staggering expense, however, has dwarfed the 2003 White House war estimate of $60 billion, and the price is rising. “America is a rich country,” said Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and former World Bank chief economist. “The question is not whether we can afford to squander $3 trillion or $5 trillion,” he told committee members. “We can. But our strength will be sapped. … There is no such thing as a free war.” Taxpayers have spent $607 billion to pay for the war through September, according to the staff of the Joint Economic Committee, made up of Republicans and Democrats from both houses of Congress. The true cost to date, though, is $1.3 trillion, the committee staff estimates, when taking into account the costs of caring for wounded soldiers, replacing equipment lost or destroyed, the economic impact of disrupted oil markets and lost work time for reservists and other expenses. In a report published last November, the committee estimated that the war would cost Americans between $3.5 trillion and $4.5 trillion by 2017.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/POLITICS/802290353/1020/rss09
Guest Opinion: Rove The War Criminal
What is less-well known, however, is Rove’s direct and intimate involvement with a neoconservative, far-right agenda to intentionally mislead the American people into a war for oil in Iraq. On Feb. 20, Rove told 1,200 students at the University of Pennsylvania that history gave America 9/11 so that the Bush administration could invade Iraq. “History has a funny way of deciding things,” the Philadelphia Bulletin reported Rove as saying. “Sometimes history sends you things, and 9/11 came our way.” Rove has documented ties to the founding members of the Project for a New American Century think tank, an organization that, in 2000, released a report calling for the strategic realignment of U.S. military bases across the globe and regime change in Iraq. In its report, it wrote: “The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” Rove was appointed senior adviser to the president in January 2001. Plans to invade Iraq and sell off its oil fields to private investors were discussed during President Bush’s very first Cabinet meeting, according to “60 Minutes.” Maps of Iraqi oil fields were passed around at energy-policy meetings attended by Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney, according to the BBC and Judicial Watch. Videos from early 2001 of both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice stating that Iraq was contained and no longer a threat are easily accessible on YouTube. Hours after 9/11, aides to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recorded that he wanted “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL? Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not,” according to CBS News. In August 2002, the secretive White House Iraq Group was formed to market and sell the Iraq war to Congress, the American public, and international allies, according to the Washington Post. Rove chaired weekly White House Iraq Group meetings throughout 2002 and 2003. Public rhetoric against Iraq was escalated by the group, which came up with such phrases as “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
Injured While Playing Baseball
Being hit by the ball is the cause of approximately five in ten of all baseball injuries.
Being hit by the bat is the cause of approximately one in ten of all baseball injuries.
9/11: The Unraveling of the Official Story Continues
The news prompted 9/11 Commission co-chairs Kean and Hamilton to fire off an angry salvo in the New York Times in which they charged that the CIA had obstructed their investigation. Their blunt accusation was explosive and should have caused every American to sit up and take notice. Unfortunately, the average American probably failed to connect the dots because, as usual, the US media offered nothing in the way of helpful context or analysis. We were fed the usual diet of tidbits and sound bytes: a wealth of minutiae. The big picture remained elusive. Kean and Hamilton had a similar reaction–––outrage. In their article they state categorically that the CIA never informed them about any taped interrogations, despite their repeated requests for all pertinent information about the captured Al Qaeda operatives, who were then in CIA custody. In fact, as damaging as the news about the CIA’s destruction of evidence surely was, the story exposed an even more serious problem. One might naturally assume that the official commission charged to investigate the events of 9/11 would have had unfettered access to all of the evidence pertinent to the case, including government documents and key witnesses. This goes without saying. Access was vital to the success of the investigation. How else could the commission do its work? Yet, it never happened. In their article Kean and Hamilton summarize their dealings with the CIA. They describe their private meeting with CIA Director George Tenet and how he denied them access to the captured members of Al Qaeda. Which means, of course, that the panel never had a chance to conduct its own interviews. Tenet even denied them permission to conduct second-hand interviews with the CIA interrogators, which Kean and Hamilton felt were needed to “to better judge the credibility of the witnesses and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.” Ultimately, the commission was forced to rely on third-hand intelligence reports prepared by the CIA itself. Many of these reports were poorly written and incomplete summaries which, according to the co-chairs “raised almost as many questions as they answered.” In order to resolve the many uncertainties the commission prepared a list of questions, which they then submitted to the CIA. The questions covered a range of topics, such as the translations from the Arabic, inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories, the context of the questioning, how the interrogators followed up certain lines of questioning, and the assessments of the interrogators themselves. But the CIA’s response was less than helpful. In their article Kean and Hamilton state that “the [CIA] general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies.” This is a bland way of saying that the agency stiffed the panel. Not satisfied, Kean and Hamilton made another attempt to gain access to the captives, but were again rebuffed during a head-to-head meeting with Tenet in December 2003. For this reason the ambiguities and other questions went unresolved and still flaw the commission’s final report. Yet, as I have indicated, the more serious problem was the panel’s lack of access to begin with, a problem that was by no means obvious until the recent story broke in the mainstream press. As we now know, Kean and Hamilton had inserted a caveat in their report (on page 146) conceding that they were denied access to the witnesses. Most readers, however, probably pass right over it without understanding its awful significance. I know I did, the first time I read the report. OK. It is now 2008. Is America prepared to face reality? The 9/11 Commission’s lack of direct access to the captured members of al Qaeda can only mean that the official 9/11 investigation was fundamentally compromised from the outset. No other conclusion is possible, given the latest disclosures. In their recent article Kean and Hamilton do not repudiate their own report, at least, not in so many words. But they come close. They insinuate that the CIA’s stonewalling now calls into question the veracity of key parts of the official story, especially the plot against America supposedly masterminded by Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and approved by Osama bin Laden. Until now, the nation has assumed that all of this was soundly based on the testimony of the captured al Qaeda operatives, several of whom supposedly confessed. This is the story told in the 9/11 Commission Report. However, when you probe more deeply you discover the devil lurking in the details. I personally believe there was a plot by al Qaeda to attack America. Yet, without independent confirmation about what the captives actually confessed to, precisely what was said and by whom, indeed, whether they confessed at all, there is absolutely no way for us to know how much of the official story is true and how much was fabricated by the CIA for reasons we can only guess. Shenon’s most important revelation is sure to fuel the unraveling process. Shenon names CIA Director George Tenet as one of the government officials whom the commissioners and staff were certain had lied during the hearings. Tenet gave testimony on three occasions (in addition to the private meetings with Kean and Hamilton) and in each of these hearings the CIA Director suffered from a faulty memory, frequently responding with “I can’t remember.” Initially, the commissioners were inclined to be sympathetic and gave the director the benefit of the doubt. (Tenet’s supporters at the agency reportedly made excuses for their boss: George could not remember because he was dead-tired, physically exhausted from dealing with the war on terrorism, and suffering from sleep deprivation–––not getting enough shuteye. Poor old George.) But gradually the tide turned. By Tenet’s third appearance it was obvious to everyone he was perjuring himself. Curiously, there no mention of this spectacle in the 9/11 Commission Report. Why not? Kean gave the reason at the panel’s first public hearing in New York City, when he said: “Our…purpose will not be to point fingers.” The comment was not well received. According to Shenon, it prompted a rumble in the audience, including sneers from the families of the victims who wanted those officials responsible to be held accountable. As to why Kean and Hamilton did not make more aggressive use of their authority to subpoena evidence, Shenon’s answer is not very satisfying but rings true. The co-chairs were overcautious because they wished to avoid a legal showdown that would drag out in the courts. A legal stalemate threatened to delay their investigation beyond the mandated deadline, which in their view would have been tantamount to a Bush victory. It was a huge mistake, however. Had Kean and Hamilton stood tough and issued blanket subpoenas early in the investigation as their legal counsel advised, the inevitable showdown in the courts would have worked in their favor. Bush and Tenet would have been perceived–––correctly–––as obstructing the investigation and would have come under increasing pressure and scrutiny. That sort of confrontation would have served the discovery process and the cause of 9/11 truth. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen. This helps to explain why the official investigation failed in its stated objective: “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.”
http://dailyscare.com/3069/9-11-the-unraveling-of-the-official-story-continues
What’s Good Enough For Grandmother Is Good Enough For Grandson
Prince Harry has been serving on the front lines in Afghanistan since December, calling in air strikes and going on foot patrols, Britain’s Defence Ministry confirmed Thursday. The confirmation came shortly after the news was leaked by an Australian magazine and a German newspaper, as well as the U.S. news site Drudge Report. Prince Harry patrols the Afghan town of Garmisir on Jan. 2. His presence in Afghanistan was supposed to be kept a secret by the media. His presence in Afghanistan was supposed to be kept a secret by the media. The prince, who is third in line to the British throne, has been in Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province for 10 weeks and was to have remained until mid-April. A lieutenant in the Blues and Royals regiment, he has been serving as an air controller, co-ordinating pilots and forces on the ground and calling in air strikes on Taliban fighters. With the news now leaked, there has been no decision on whether to cut short his deployment and bring him home, British military officials said. “His conduct on operations in Afghanistan has been exemplary,” said the head of the British army, Gen. Richard Dannatt. “He has been fully involved in operations and has run the same risks as everyone else in his battle group.” Continue Article In an interview from Afghanistan that was made public Thursday, Harry told the BBC the deployment is “massively important” and a “turning point” in his life. “It’s very nice to be sort of a normal person for once. I think it’s about as normal as I’m going to get,” he said, adding that he doesn’t miss anything from home, even alcohol. The prince often made headlines for his partying. Officials ‘disappointed’ in leak Britain’s Defence Ministry had announced Harry’s deployment to Iraq last summer, but later reversed the decision, saying his presence could jeopardize the safety of his colleagues. Harry has often complained he would quit the armed forces unless he is allowed to fight alongside his colleagues. When he graduated from military college in 2006, Harry told an interviewer he wasn’t going to put himself through military school “and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country.” After his deployment to Iraq was canned, about a dozen defence officials quietly hatched a plan to send the prince to Afghanistan, CBC correspondent Adrienne Arsenault said. A handful of journalists were invited to observe Harry on the battlefield under the agreement they would not report the information until the deployment had ended. The news blackout was intended to reduce the risk to the prince and his regiment. Dannatt issued a statement saying he was “very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us.” Harry’s father, Prince Charles, released a statement Thursday through his spokesperson: “Prince Harry is very proud to serve his country on operations alongside his fellow soldiers and to do the job he has been trained for.” Most British soldiers are deployed in Helmand province, next to Kandahar province, where roughly 2,500 Canadian soldiers are deployed. Harry is the first member of the British Royal Family to serve in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, served as a helicopter pilot in Britain’s conflict with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.
[1]
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/28/harry-afghanistan.html
[2]
http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2006/04/12/in_depth_world/photoessay1491507_0_1_photo.shtml
[3]
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page2648.asp
Thu 28 Feb 2008
You Haven’t Begun To See Evil Until You’ve Seen The Pentagon Sodomization Videos
July 2004 — The government at the time was terrified of the videos being seen by the American public. Iraqi women were arrested with young boys. Horrible things were done to the children of the women prisoners as the cameras ran. Boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst part is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking.
[1]
http://radio.weblogs.com/0107946/2004/07/14.html
[2]
http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=5668
[3]
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh-children-raped.html
[4]
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kids_sodomized_at_abu_ghraib.php
Point to debate:
They say voters have short memories. Is this something voters should give a thought to when they enter the polling station?
The Military Is Denying Crucial Care To Soldiers With Mental Health Problems, Making Them Vulnerable On The Battlefield
Since 9/11, one Army division has spent more time in Iraq than any other group of soldiers: the 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, New York. Over the past 6 years and and six months, their 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT) has been the most deployed brigade in the army. As of this month, the brigade had completed its fourth tour of Iraq. All in all, the soldiers of BCT have spent 40 months in Iraq. At what cost? According to a February 13 report issued by the Veterans for America’s (VFA) Wounded Warrior Outreach Program, which is dedicated to strengthening the military mental health system, it is not just their bodies that have been maimed and, in some cases, destroyed. Many of these soldiers are suffering from severe mental health problems that have led to suicide attempts as well as spousal abuse and alcoholism. Meanwhile, the soldiers of the 2nd BCT have been given too little time off in between deployments: In one case they had only six months to mentally “re-set”; following an eight-month tour in Afghanistan — before beginning a 12-month tour in Iraq. Then, in April 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decided to extend Army tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months — shortly after the BCT had passed what it assumed was its halfway mark in Iraq. As the VFA report points out, “Mental health experts have explained that ’shifting the goalposts’ on a soldier’s deployment period greatly contributes to an increase in mental health problems.” Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that, during its most recent deployment, the 2nd BCT suffered heavy casualties. “Fifty-two members of the 2nd BCT were killed in action (KIA),” the VFA reports and “270 others were listed as non-fatality casualties, while two members of the unit remain missing in action (MIA).” This level of losses is unusual. “On their most recent deployment,” the VFA report notes, “members of the 2nd BCT were more than five times as likely to be killed as others who have been deployed to OEF and OIF and more than four times likely to be wounded.” One can only wonder to what degree depression and other mental health problems made them more vulnerable to attack. When they finally returned to Fort Drum, these soldiers faced winter conditions that the report describes as “dreary, with snow piled high and spring still months away. More than a dozen soldiers reported low morale, frequent DUI arrests, and rising AWOL, spousal abuse, and rates of attempted suicide. Soldiers also reported that given the financial realities of the Army, some of their fellow soldiers had to resort to taking second jobs such as delivering pizzas to supplement their family income.” What has the army done to help the soldiers at Fort Drum? Too little. In recent months, VFA reports, it has been contacted by a number of soldiers based at Fort Drum who are concerned about their own mental health and the health of other members of their units. In response, VFA launched an investigation of conditions at Fort Drum, and what it found was shocking. Soldiers told the VFA that “the leader of the mental health treatment clinic at Fort Drum asked soldiers not to discuss their mental health problems with people outside the base. Attempts to keep matters ‘in house’ foster an atmosphere of secrecy and shame,” the report observed “that is not conducive to proper treatment for combat-related mental health injuries.” The investigators also discovered that “some military mental health providers have argued that a number of soldiers fake mental health injuries to increase the likelihood that they will be deemed unfit for combat and/or for further military service.” The report notes that a “conversation with a leading expert in treating combat psychological wounds” confirmed “that some military commanders at Fort Drum doubt the validity of mental health wounds in some soldiers, thereby undermining treatment prescribed by civilian psychiatrists” at the nearby Samaritan Medical Center in Watertown, NY. “In the estimation of this expert, military commanders have undue influence in the treatment of soldiers with psychological wounds,” the report noted. “Another point of general concern for VFA is that Samaritan also has a strong financial incentive to maintain business ties with Fort Drum — a dynamic [that] deserves greater scrutiny.” Because some soldiers do not trust Samaritan, the report reveals that a number of “soldiers have sought treatment after normal base business hours at a hospital in Syracuse, more than an hour’s drive from Watertown … because they feared that Samaritan would side with base leadership, which had, in some cases, cast doubt on the legitimacy of combat-related mental health wounds. “In one case,” the report continued, “after a suicidal soldier was taken to a Syracuse hospital, he was treated there for a week, indicating that his mental health concerns were legitimate. Unfortunately, mental health officials at Fort Drum had stated that they did not believe this soldier’s problems were bona fide.” According to the VFA, the problem of military doctors refusing to back soldiers with mental health problems is widespread: “VFA’s work across the country has confirmed that soldiers often need their doctors to be stronger advocates for improved treatment by their commanders and comrades. For instance, soldiers need doctors who are willing to push back against commanders who doubt the legitimacy of combat-related mental health injuries.” While talking to soldiers at Fort Drum, VFA also discovered “considerable stigma against mental health treatment within the military and pressure within some units to deny mental health problems as a result of combat. Some soldiers who had been in the military for more than a decade stated that they lied on mental health questionnaires for fear that if they disclosed problems, it would reduce their likelihood of being promoted.” Soldiers at Fort Drum are not alone. In an earlier report titled “Trends in Treatment of America’s Wounded Warriors” VFA disclosed that leaders of the military mental health treatment system have been warning Department of Defense leadership of the magnitude of the mental health crisis that is brewing. A report by the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) that was released last May found that the percentage of soldiers suffering “severe stress, emotional, alcohol or family problem[s]” had risen more than 85 percent since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. MHAT also found that 28 percent of soldiers who had experienced high-intensity combat were screening positive for acute stress (i.e., Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD). Finally, MHAT disclosed that soldiers who had been deployed more than once were 60 percent more likely to screen positive for acute stress (i.e., PTSD) when compared to soldiers on their first deployment. VFA’s most recent report notes points out that, despite these warnings, soldiers at Fort Drum do not have access to the care they need: “More than six years after large-scale military operations began in Afghanistan and, later, in Iraq, a casual observer might assume that programs would have been implemented to ensure access for Soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division to mental health services on base. Unfortunately, an investigation by VFA has revealed that [soldiers] who recently returned from Iraq must wait for up to two months before a single appointment can be scheduled … “Given the great amount of public attention that has been focused on the psychological needs of returning service members, a casual observer might also assume that these needs would have been given a higher priority by Army leaders and the National Command Authority — the two entities with the greatest responsibility for ensuring the strength of our Armed Forces. These needs have long been acknowledged but,” the report concludes ” there has been insufficient action.” Last month the army tried putting a band-aid on the problems at Fort Drum by sending three Army psychiatrists from Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) to the Fort D on a temporary basis to treat the large influx of returning soldiers requiring mental health care. But, as the VFA points out, “this is only a temporary fix”, as the Walter Reed-based psychiatrists will likely return to Washington, DC, within a few weeks. Fort Drum will again be left with the task of treating thousands of soldiers with far too few mental health specialists. In addition, for those service members who were initially treated by psychiatrists from Walter Reed, their care will suffer from discontinuity, as their cases will be assigned a new mental health professional on subsequent visits.” And the war drags on. Earlier this month, the UK Times reported that “the conservative Washington think tank that devised the “surge” of US forces in Iraq [the American Enterprise Institute] now has come up with a plan to send 12,000 more American troops into southern Afghanistan. A panel of more than 20 experts convened by the (AEI) has also urged the administration to get tough with Pakistan. “The US should threaten to attack Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters in lawless areas on the border with Afghanistan if the Pakistan military did not deal with them itself, the panel concluded.” Where do conservatives expect to find those troops? More soldiers are likely to suffer the fate of the soldiers at Fort Drum. They will be sent back to combat, again and again — until finally, they break. Soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, depression or a host of other mental problems are not in a good position to protect themselves. Sending them back only guarantees that fatalities will rise.
Has Airport Security Improved? — Let’s Hope So
In 1999, the chance of getting on a plane on which there was a bomb, was approximately one in 100,000.
In 1999, the chance of getting on a plane on which there were two bombs, was approximately one in 10,000,000,000.
Russia’s Support Of Serbia Is More About Oil Than Kosovo
Since the end of the Balkans wars in the 1990s, the European attitude toward Serbia has been that this renegade of Europe would eventually, inevitably, join the European Union (E.U.). Of course, Serbia had started the horrific ethnic-nationalist wars that ended with tens of thousands dead. Of course, Serbia’s greatest backer was the former Soviet Union, with whom it shared a heritage of the Orthodox Church. But the world had changed. The U.S.S.R. had become simply “Russia” once again, or the “Russian Federation.” Now one could argue that during these last two weeks everything has changed once more — back to the past. The transformed Russia of Vladimir Putin — who will step aside temporarily as Russian president in putative elections this Sunday (March 2) — has dramatically reinstated its historic relations with Serbia through its partnership with the Serbian gas and oil industry. Along the way, it has taken two other Eastern European nations who are already E.U. members with it into the transaction. Serbia, with its mix of a political leadership of the old ethnic-nationalists of the ’90s and some more pro-European Serbs, has angrily turned eastward once again. Any remaining pro-American tendencies have been decidedly dampened. And one would not be too far off the mark by speculating that this could be part of Russia’s potentially threatening move back into Europe, this time using its energy resources as the pivot, and that new Balkans conflicts could well be arising that we had thought settled. It is easy to find, in little, long-oppressed Kosovo, that formerly Yugoslav and then Serb enclave of 2 million mostly ethnic Albanians, an excuse for Moscow to move closer again to Belgrade — for both the United States and the E.U. supported Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia on Feb. l7. Meanwhile, anyone left in Serbia’s more moderate political class proceeded immediately down the road to oblivion. For comic relief, listen to the words of Serbian President Boris Tadic. At an emergency U.N. Security Council session, he warned that Kosovo’s unthinkable act of wanting to rule itself would embolden other separatists across the world. “If you allow this illegal act to stand,” he declared, “you will show that right and justice may go unrespected in the world. You will show that, unfortunately, this body of the world organization is losing its authority.” Now it may well be that the United Nations’ authority is forever dicey, but to claim “right and justice” for the marauding Serbs of the 1990s should be saved for a Belgrade version of “Saturday Night Live.” Meanwhile, in an ominous sign in Kosovo itself, many Serb policemen in the Serb majority areas were pledging loyalty to Belgrade while separate Serb government and law enforcement bodies were being formed, this probably marking attempts to partition Kosovo still further. As the new “candidate” for the Russian presidency, Dmitry Medvedev, said with unmistakable clarity, “We proceed from the understanding that Serbia is a single state with its jurisdiction spanning the entire territory.” It was, furthermore, Medvedev, already chosen as interim president by Putin, who traveled in the interesting period between Kosovo’s independence and the upcoming Russian elections to Belgrade to sign — what? — amazing deals with Serbia on a gas pipeline and almost certainly on buying into the rundown Serb oil refinery in Pancevo. Medvedev’s pipeline deal for Moscow clears the way for the construction of the planned 550-mile South Stream pipeline through Serbia en route to Western Europe. Costs are reported to be in the area of $1.5 billion. In addition — and substantively expanding the energy ambitions of Russia toward Europe — the president presumptive said that the deal to buy Serbia’s state oil refinery, NIS, would be signed soon. Russia has offered $600 million for the refinery, with an additional $730 million to modernize the company. But perhaps surprising for the publicly “progressive” Medvedev, who often speaks out on behalf of liberal issues and personal freedom, was the fact that he spoke out clearly on these deals with Serbia, saying that these energy treaties and agreements “form the foundation of energy stability for all of Europe in the future.” Let’s repeat part of that: “for ALL of Europe in the future.” Perhaps it is not all that surprising for the man who is chairman of Gazprom, Russia’s natural gas monopoly — and, yes, that has been his main job — to take an interest in energy monopolization and its rewards. What is surprising is that other recent E.U. members are also embracing deals with Russia and Gazprom. In the same week that the Serbian gas deal was consummated, Hungary also backed it; Bulgaria had already done so. But then, “outgoing” President Putin — who is scheduled to return as president when Medvedev’s term is over — is rumored to be “suspiciously wealthy.” According to a remarkable article, “Putin’s Choice,” by respected scholar Zbigniew Brzezinski in the upcoming issue of The Washington Quarterly, Putin is reported by Russian sources to have a calculated wealth of billions, “most of it in shares of state-controlled energy enterprises … including 4.5 percent of Gazprom.” The purport of all of this? To see that the genie of radical nationalism, released so tragically 20 years ago in Serbia, is threatening to pop up again in the Balkans. An angry Russia is attempting to use its energy wealth to move once again into Europe. And the West had better look out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20080228/cm_ucgg/russiassupportofserbiaismoreaboutoilthankosovo
