West Asia News and Discussions (YEMEN, gulf)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Oct 2015 15:51

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/319084-us-me ... ish-blair/

'Blair’s role in destroying Iraq will follow him to his grave'
John Wight

Published time: 19 Oct, 2015 15:12

Many around the world believe that Tony Blair did not only support the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, but did so in contravention of international law. New damning evidence in this regard suggests the net is finally closing in on him.

The unearthing of two classified US government memos, published in the UK tabloid, the Mail on Sunday, leaves no doubt that the former British prime minister committed Britain to following the US into Iraq a full year before the bombs started dropping on Baghdad in March 2003.

The first of the memos concerned was sent to US president George W Bush by his secretary of state, Colin Powell, in early April of 2002. In it Powell writes: “On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary. He is convinced on two points: the threat is real; and success against Saddam will yield more regional success.”

At the same time, as the former British PM was alleged to have committed UK forces to war alongside the US, Blair was assuring the British public that he and the American president were seeking a diplomatic solution to the question of Iraq and Saddam’s role in the region.

Powell also discusses trade issues in the first memo, specifically the controversial decision by the Bush administration to impose a tariff on EU steel imports in March 2002: “We do not expect Blair to dwell on the steel decision, although it was a bitter blow for him, as he indicated in his recent letter to you. It is clear that Britain will not fight our fight within the EU on this.”

This is a shocking revelation, exposing the extent to which Blair was willing to suborn UK’s trade and economic interests, along with the untold number of British jobs dependent on them, to his priority of currying favor with Washington.

Moving on to the second classified memo, prepared by the US Embassy in London for Colin Powell, we are given an insight into the determination of Blair and his allies to overcome political obstacles and opposition within his own parliamentary Labour Party over Britain’s potential participation in a US military coalition vis-à-vis Iraq.

Most shocking here is the suggestion that the US Embassy had confidential sources among Labour MPs, providing it with inside information, with their names in the document redacted to conceal their identities.

The memos have come to light in the wake of the scandal surrounding the location of classified emails on the private server of Hillary Clinton from her own time as secretary of state in the Obama administration. Currently campaigning for the Democratic Party nomination for next year’s presidential elections, Clinton was recently forced by a federal judge to release the emails, which number around 30,000.

It is thought she may have requested the memos to and from her Republican predecessor, Colin Powell, in order to review the procedures that were followed by the US State Department prior to the start of the US-UK invasion in March 2003.

Whatever her motivation for possessing them, their revelations place further pressure on Sir John Chilcot and his inquiry into Iraq, set up in 2009 and which has yet to publish its findings six years after the last witness was questioned in 2010. When Blair appeared in front of the inquiry he denied the allegation that he committed Britain to military action in Iraq along with the United States, during the aforementioned Crawford, Texas summit with George W Bush.

Growing public and political disquiet over the inordinate delay in publishing the findings of the inquiry has been focused on the possibility that it is being held up by Blair, unhappy with the criticisms that have been made of his conduct and actions in the run-up to the war in Chilcot's report, which Blair along with the other witnesses who have come in for criticism have seen in advance in order to allow them to respond.

No matter, the publication of these classified US memos merely add to the growing clamor for the former British prime minister and key personnel within his government and inner circle to be investigated for war crimes and face trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The fact that Blair has gone on to amass a fortune since leaving office in 2007 - through his role as adviser to various governments around the world, some with egregious human rights records; his role as a consultant to an international bank, a Saudi oil company, and as a speaker at various corporate and international business gatherings – many find especially repugnant.

What these memos prove is that Tony Blair was blinded by the power of Washington, desperate to bask in its favors and prestige, determined in the process to become a political player on the international stage. Instead he has become a laughing stock, particularly in the UK, where public revulsion of him is widely felt, indeed it is now a toss-up between him and Margaret Thatcher over which is the most loathed British prime minister in the country's recent history.

What should never be lost when discussing Blair and his role when it comes to Iraq are the catastrophic consequences suffered by the Iraqi people. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children were killed as a direct result of the war in 2003, with many more maimed, millions displaced, and an entire nation traumatized beyond measure.

In 2015, rather than the flowering democracy promised by Blair, Bush, and their apologists, Iraq is a country mired in chaos, rife with sectarian violence, social dislocation, with Third World level poverty the norm for a people who at one time could boast of First World level education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

Tony Blair’s role in destroying Iraq will follow him to his grave. However, if there is any justice in the world, it should also follow him into the dock at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Oct 2015 20:13

Philip, Did Blair willingly mislead Bush on the garden path to decline?
Don't forget loss of Empire is hurtful to the Brits still.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Oct 2015 20:16

i dont think blair exerted any great influence on GW2 vs the entire neocon establishment riding shotgun in DC. he was their dream candidate at an opportune time where none could oppose.

UK seems to have drifted away or atleast not getting enough financial carrots from US now and is courting the chinese premier like a king on his london visit.

always a provider of niche services to bigger powers. perhaps they want to attract money that is parked outside china mostly in US.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Oct 2015 06:36

New York Times
See realtime coverage
Taliban Kill at Least 22 Afghan Police Officers
New York Times - ‎4 hours ago‎
KABUL, Afghanistan - Days after overrunning a major district in the northwestern Afghan province of Faryab, the Taliban killed at least 22 policemen and captured the district's security chief along with many of his men after they ran out of ammunition ...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Oct 2015 19:53

houthis doing the usual- burning saudi property

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMMsmkwHM5Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTn6PiJA-KE

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 21 Oct 2015 20:03

US profiting out of other's misery as usual?

US to sell Saudi Arabia four warships worth over $11 billion

The administration of US President Barack Obama has approved a deal worth billions of dollars to sell Saudi Arabia four advanced warships.

The US Defense Department said on Tuesday that it has notified Congress of the $11.25 billion deal after the State Department approved the sale to the Saudi government.

US lawmakers have one month to reject the sale, although such measures are rare since potential deals are carefully examined before formal notification.

The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees foreign military sales, notified Congress on Monday about the potential sale of the Lockheed Martin combat ships.

The ships are relatively small but designed to be fast and maneuverable in shallow water.

"This sale demonstrates the enduring US commitment to building robust diplomatic and security partnerships essential to promoting peace and stability in the [Persian] Gulf region," said one US official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The sale comes as the Saudi regime has come under increasing criticism over civilian casualties from its airstrikes against Yemen and a harsh crackdown on political dissidents inside the country.

The United Nations has condemned the Saudis over their airstrikes against the Houthi Ansarullah movement in Yemen, which have resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands of innocent civilians, including children.

Some 7,000 people have reportedly lost their lives in the Saudi raids, and at least 14,000 people have been injured.

Yemen has been under Saudi attacks on a daily basis since March 26. The strikes are supposedly meant to undermine the Houthi Ansarullah movement and restore power to fugitive former president, Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, a staunch ally of Riyadh.

The Saudis are also facing criticism from human rights groups over their continued refusal to allow basic rights to women as well as for their suppression of political dissidents.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/10/20 ... mbat-ships

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 21 Oct 2015 20:07

looks like Houthis are willing to back off but the constant bombing is preventing them from doing so...

http://www.albawaba.com/loop/here%E2%80 ... men-757278

On Monday the Yemeni government agreed to negotiations with Houthis again, weeks after the rebels in Yemen agreed to a UN-brokered deal in Muscat, Oman aimed at ending the conflict.

In a letter addressed from Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdulsalam to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Houthis agreed to a seven-point resolution brokered in Muscat, Oman, referred to as the "Muscat principles."

The negotiations included a ceasefire, President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi's return to the capital Sanaa, and removal of armed militias in Yemen's cities. It would essentially end the war, in which human rights groups say both parties have been guilty of violating international law.

Negotiations took major steps backward when, days after the letter was publicized, the Saudi-led coalition conducted airstrikes on a second wedding. The two wedding bombings killed at least 145 people total.

Here's the document showing Houthis agreed to the resolution:

Translation:

The seven-point document (Muscat Principals) formed a basic entrance towards reaching a settlement for the ongoing conflict, and with no doubt it was a great major step for restarting the political life in Yemen.

Based on the above, we urge the secretary-general of the Security Council to spend all of his efforts to support it, confirming our commitment as well as the commitment of the other parties with all of the seven points. This includes adhering to the Security Council Resolutions, especially Resolution Number 2216 according to its execution mechanism.

The Security Council supports the political solution in Yemen and to return to the negotiation table without preconditions. We also support this. However, there was no positive reaction from the other party towards the efforts of the special envoy of the UN and the Security Council invitation to go back to the negotiation table.

Both Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition in the past have been guilty of not honoring their deals. But the rebels have never agreed to pulling out of Sanaa. Resolution 2216, mentioned in the letter above, has been a major sticking point in agreements with the Yemeni government.

They also don't usually send proof of agreements to the media shortly afterward, indicating — at least from Houthis — that they may be open to progress.

By Hayat Norimine

Falijee · Post by **Falijee** » 21 Oct 2015 20:13

http://tribune.com.pk/story/976613/i-am-a-prince-and-i-do-what-i-want-said-drugged-up-saudi-royal/
"Money and /or Blackmail Diplomacy " At Play Here?

A Saudi prince, who was arrested last month at his LA mansion, is accused of having a sexual relationship with a male aide, taking cocaine and threatening to kill women who refused his advances — as well as sexually assaulting a maid, Daily Mail reported.
Prince Majed bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is now facing a series of allegations in a civil case brought by three female staff members of his Los Angeles mansion.

Will be hard to collect damages ; the whole Saudi Govt is "famous" for making good on their financial obligations.

The staff has accused him of repeatedly making unwanted sexual advances while being drunk and high at his $37 million mansion in Beverly Hills and even forcing them to watch a male aide pleasure him, according to court documents.

The women who had been employed by the prince to look after his Wallingford Drive mansion say that they still have not been paid and are hoping to recover their lost earnings. They allege that the 29-year-old prince threw a party on September 21 and arranged for “multiple escorts” to attend. As the evening progressed, he became “increasingly intoxicated” and was seen engaging in “illicit drug abuse”.

What a bunch of hypocrites ! And they dont even allow women to drive .

The day after that, he attempted to urinate on the three women but was dragged away by an assistant before he could so. However, he returned ten minutes later and the incident in which he rubbed himself against one of the women occurred. When she attempted to reason with him, saying, “I’m a woman” he screamed, “You’re not a woman, you are a nobody! I’m a prince and I will do what I want and nobody will do anything to me!”

A legal way should be found to bar them from flying outside their desert kingdom; guess that's impossible !

Al Saud has not been seen at his rented $37 million Beverly Glen mansion since his arrest late last month and is thought by neighbours to have fled the country.

Probably, with the connivance of his country's embassy !

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 21 Oct 2015 20:14

And we have a few more players joining in to the great middle eastern orgy (well, middle western for us Indians but still...)

http://www.worldbulletin.net/todays-new ... e-to-yemen

Sudanese, Egyptian troops en route to Yemen

Troops expected to arrive in Aden later this week to join Saudi Arabia’s anti-Houthi coalition

A third batch of Sudanese troops will arrive in Yemen’s southern city of Aden this week, a senior Yemeni military source said.
The source said the Sudanese troops would arrive in Aden on either Wednesday or Thursday to join a Saudi Arabia-led coalition that has been battling Yemen’s Shia Houthi militant group since March.
Earlier this week, some 800 Sudanese troops reportedly arrived in Yemen in two batches.
Yassin Mekkawi, an adviser to Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, told Al-Hayat newspaper that a number of Egyptian troops, too, were expected to arrive in Aden within days.
Fractious Yemen has remained in turmoil since last year, when Houthi militants overran capital Sanaa, from which they extended their influence to other parts of the country as well.
In March, Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies began an extensive air campaign aimed at reversing Houthi gains and restoring Hadi’s government, most members of which had fled to Riyadh.
Last month, following a string of Houthi military reverses, Hadi -- along with several members of his Saudi-backed government -- returned to the war-torn country after six months in Saudi Arabia.

Several other reports are saying the same, confirming the news is legitimate, some 10,000 troops from Sudan will be sent to join Saudis and a "significant" boost in Egyptian troops will also happen according to sources

1. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/mi ... ition.html

2. http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article56779

3. http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/su ... -coalition

4. http://www.ibtimes.com/yemen-crisis-dea ... on-2150040

Earlier this week, Sudan sent in an additional 6,000 troops trained in guerilla warfare into Yemen to fight alongside the Saudi Arabia-led coalition currently battling the Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Egypt and Morocco are also expected to increase their ground forces in the coming weeks, an army spokesperson informed Yemen Post.

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 21 Oct 2015 20:22

Falijee wrote:http://tribune.com.pk/story/976613/i-am-a-prince-and-i-do-what-i-want-said-drugged-up-saudi-royal/
"Money and /or Blackmail Diplomacy " At Play Here?
<snip>

Can't the host country kick him out and confisticate his million dollar property? It should be fairly easy to do if he doesn't have a citizenship.That's what happens when morons are highly respected and get rich without working a day for either. Is a so-called prince still a prince if he's outside his little kingdom?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Oct 2015 20:54

is being gay punishable in KSA ?

I guess thats why those in royal family who want that lifestyle prefer to hang out in the west.

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 21 Oct 2015 21:51

Singha wrote:is being gay punishable in KSA ?

I guess thats why those in royal family who want that lifestyle prefer to hang out in the west.

ah but he's a prince and he can do whatever he wants no? does that not include cave explorations of the other kind?

Btw, no, it's a criminal offense in religion of peace headquarters (ROPH) TM

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Oct 2015 01:50

Meanwhile, Qatar has threatened to invade Moscow through Syria. (c other thread). All 3 F-16s being fuelled up with Qatari gas, which comes natural to them.

Putin said to be hiding in his pakistan.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 22 Oct 2015 07:51

those Qataris are pretty darn tough.

and their guest workers build some very tall buildings too.

and their guest workers operate some fabulous hotels and resorts also.

and they have an awesome space exploration program.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/qatar-se ... 03771.html

Qatar is boosting its space exploration programme in a bid to discover more planets, setting up new observatories in Asia, Europe and America, the country’s leading astronomer Dr Khalid al-Subai has said.
About $5m will be pumped into the country’s Exoplanet Survey, a research program that searches for unidentified planets in other solar systems, while a further $1m will be spend on promoting astronomy within Qatar and the region, Gulf Times has reported.
The new observatories will be established in New Mexico, where Qatar already has a station, the Canary Islands and either India or Iraq, al-Subai, Qatar’s first professional astronomer, said.
Al-Subai was instrumental in the discovery of Qatar-1b, a giant Jupiter-like exoplanet, meaning it revolves around a star in a galaxy other than Earth.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 22 Oct 2015 07:54

Though not exactly west asia related but posting here as the same players US, West, and sunni jihadi govt of west asia caused f'up:

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention - Oct 20, 2015

Tuesday marks the four-year anniversary of the US-backed assassination of Libya’s former leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and the decline into chaos of one of Africa’s greatest nations.

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; by the time he was assassinated, he had transformed Libya into Africa’s richest nation. Prior to the US-led bombing campaign in 2011, Libya had the highest Human Development Index, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy in all of Africa.

Today, Libya is a failed state. Western military intervention has caused all of the worst-scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for ISIS terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.

Libya currently has two competing governments, two parliaments, two sets of rivaling claims to control over the central bank and the national oil company, no functioning national police or army, and the United States now believes that ISIS is running training camps across large swathes of the country.

On one side, in the West of the nation, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other key cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was previously elected.

On the other side, in the East of the nation, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything. The democracy which Libyans were promised by Western governments after the fall of Colonel Gaddafi has all but vanished.

Contrary to popular belief, Libya, which western media routinely described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship” was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States.

Under Gaddafi’s unique system of direct democracy, traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.

Far from control being in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, Basic People’s Congresses and Executive Revolutionary Councils.

The Basic People’s Congress (BPC), or Mu’tamar shaʿbi asāsi was essentially Libya’s functional equivalent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom or the House of Representatives in the United States. However, Libya’s People’s Congress was not comprised merely of elected representatives who discussed and proposed legislation on behalf of the people; rather, the Congress allowed all Libyans to directly participate in this process. Eight hundred People’s Congresses were set up across the country and all Libyans were free to attend and shape national policy and make decisions over all major issues including budgets, education, industry, and the economy.

In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. The New York Times, that has traditionally been highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that “everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.”

The fundamental difference between western democratic systems and the Libyan Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya all citizens were allowed to voice their views directly – not in one parliament of only a few hundred wealthy politicians – but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Mr. Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy.

On numerous occasions Mr. Gaddafi’s proposals were rejected by popular vote during Congresses and the opposite was approved and enacted as legislation.

For instance, on many occasions Mr. Gaddafi proposed the abolition of capital punishment and he pushed for home schooling over traditional schools. However, the People’s Congresses wanted to maintain the death penalty and classic schools, and the will of the People’s Congresses prevailed. Similarly, in 2009, Colonel Gaddafi put forward a proposal to essentially abolish the central government altogether and give all the oil proceeds directly to each family. The People’s Congresses rejected this idea too.

For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.

Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and an invariably wealthy local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic and economic policy themselves.

America’s bombing campaign of 2011 has not only destroyed the infrastructure of Libya’s democracy, America has also actively promoted ISIS terror group leader Abdelhakim Belhadj whose organization is making the establishment of Libyan democracy impossible.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups in North Africa and the Middle East will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side Western nations and extremist political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

Since then America has used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against Soviet expansion, the Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia and the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least there is Al-Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization throughout the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means “the base” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq.

ISIS is metastasizing at an alarming rate in Libya, under the leadership of one Abdelhakim Belhadj. Fox News recently admitted that Mr. Belhadj “was once courted by the Obama administration and members of Congress” and he was a staunch ally of the United States in the quest to topple Gaddafi. In 2011, the United States and Senator McCain hailed Belhadj as a “heroic freedom fighter” and Washington gave his organization arms and logistical support. Now Senator McCain has called Belhadj’s organization ISIS, “probably the biggest threat to America and everything we stand for.”

Under Gaddafi, Islamic terrorism was virtually non existent and in 2009 the US State Department called Libya “an important ally in the war on terrorism”.

Today, after US intervention, Libya is home to the world’s largest loose arms cache, and its porous borders are routinely transited by a host of heavily armed non-state actors including Tuareg separatists, jihadists who forced Mali’s national military from Timbuktu and increasingly ISIS militiamen led by former US ally Abdelhakim Belhadj.

Clearly, Gaddafi’s system of economic and direct democracy was one of the 21st century’s most profound democratic experiments and NATO’s bombardment of Libya may indeed go down in history as one of the greatest military failures of the 21st century.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 22 Oct 2015 08:02

In other news:
Russia is planning to impose extreme sanctions on vatican priest class, UK and sunni jihadi politicians - Oct 20, 2015

Upper House MP Anton Belyakov has drafted a bill allowing Russian courts to order the chemical castration of people convicted of sex crimes against children. At present, such a measure can only be applied on a voluntary basis.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2015 11:35

Bibi N has kicked up a "perfect storm" with his comments that Hitler in WW2 ,who earlier only wanted the Jews to be thrown out and deported from Germany,was advised by the Grand Mufti to "kill the Jews".Famous Nazi apologist David Irving in his books showed that Hitler wanted the Jews to be sent to Madagascar,Russia,etc. and when that was not poss. the "final Solution" was engineered allegedly by Himmler and Heydrich not Hitler,who never signed an order for the same. While "der Fuhrer" cannot escape his overall responsibility for the horrific events perpetrated by the Nazis in WW2,Bibi N's take on the Grand Mufti is now shifting some of the blame onto the Muslims.An explosive comment.What is the truth?

The speed with which the German govt. is trying to ridicule the comments show their fear if a right wing anti-immigrant/refugee pro-Nazi mood sweeps the country,throwing Frayer Merkel into the dustbin of history.

Germany refuses to accept Netanyahu’s claim Palestinian inspired Holocaust
Germany says it has no reason to change its view of history after Israel’s prime minister blames mufti of Jerusalem for inciting Holocaust.

Kate Connolly in Berlin
Wednesday 21 October 2015 19.16 BST Last modified on Thursday 22 October 2015

Germany has said it has no reason to change its view of history after Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, said Adolf Hitler had been persuaded to carry out the Holocaust by a Palestinian leader.

Before a trip to Berlin, Netanyahu provoked incredulity and anger among many when he claimed in a speech that Hitler had only wanted to expel Europe’s Jews and that the idea to exterminate them had come from the then mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.

But at a joint press conference with Netanyahu on Wednesday, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, made it clear she saw no need for a shift in interpreting history, saying: “We abide by our responsibility for the Shoah.”

Anger at Netanyahu claim Palestinian grand mufti inspired Holocaust

Earlier, her spokesman Steffen Seibert said the Holocaust was “very much” a German crime. “Speaking on behalf of the German government, I can say that all of us Germans know very precisely the history of the murderous racial fanaticism of the National Socialists that led to the break with civilisation that was the Shoah,” Seibert told journalists in Berlin.

“This is taught in German schools for good reason. It must never be forgotten. And I don’t see any reason that we should change our view of history in any way whatsoever. We know that responsibility for this crime against humanity is German and very much our own,” he said.

In a speech at the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting between Hitler and Husseini in November 1941, and claimed: “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said: ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here.’ ‘So what should I do with them?’ he asked. He said: ‘Burn them.’

Binyamin Netanyahu: a Palestinian inspired the Holocaust

Before leaving for Germany for talks with Merkel, as well as the US secretary of state, John Kerry, who will meet him in Berlin, the Israeli prime minister said it was absurd to say he was absolving Hitler of responsibility for the Holocaust. But he added: “It’s equally absurd to ignore the role played by the mufti, a war criminal” who he said was “instrumental in the decision to exterminate the Jews of Europe”.

Writing in the conservative daily newspaper Die Welt, the prominent commentator Alan Posener said Germans were used to despots reinterpreting German history, but it was a shock to hear a Jewish leader apparently trying to belittle Hitler’s role in the Holocaust.

“His interpretation of history has all the marks of the opportunism that defines his whole behaviour. By exculpating the Germans and incriminating a Muslim, he is hoping to win friends among European Islamophobes. His motivation is understandable, but wrong,” wrote Posener.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/o ... -holocaust

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Oct 2015 12:21

TSJones wrote:those Qataris are pretty darn tough.

oh yeah, they grew some cojones once the USAF set up shop in their territory. before that there was a lot of dish-dash shivering going on, what with their al saud birathers to the south and them nasty persians to the north. reminds me of the line from top gun - "son, your ego's writing cheques your body can't cash"

i think they have about 5 people in their military who can actually spell "tactical" and the others (who are not gastarbeiter) look lovely in their sparkly uniforms

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Oct 2015 17:45

TSJones wrote:those Qataris are pretty darn tough.

Recent Strategic National Objective (no kidding):
A Competition to develop the Best Picture Showing the (future) Result of Your Research Program.
I am considering sending a picture of yaks smiling as they eat the New Improved Ulan Bator Su-35 Brand Lichens.
Perhaps a picture of the Qatari Army will send the Russians flying back to Moscow.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Oct 2015 18:12

The truth is Europeans made Hitler into an effigy/voodoo doll like the one at Haj and throw stones to cleanse themselves. The fault is in themselves.
Bibi is making them introspect and that makes them upset for they don't have an excuse.

Both Christianity and Islam have worked to exterminate Jews wherever they had absolute power.

The pious King Richard III aka Lion Heart had them massacred to celebrate his coronation.
Recall Ivanhoe, novel and the underlying plot against the Jewish merchant?

We all know Muhammad's exploits!

E.g. Scandinavia was a haven for Nazi ideology even till the 70s.
And happily gives out Nobel peace prizes!

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 23 Oct 2015 05:42

Will India Become the Next Big Player in the Syrian War?

Syria recently renewed its call for India to play an active role in resolving the conflict there. While India has thus far preferred to stand on the side-lines, evolving dynamics in the Middle East could compel it to develop a more assertive approach.
It was in November 2013 that Damascus began to court India for political support."We want India and the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) to play an important role in the political process, convening Geneva II and finding a solution to the crisis," stated Syrian President Bashar Assad’s advisor, Bouthaina Shabaan, during a visit to New Delhi. Shabaan also emphasized the countries' "cultural and historical ties."
Reiterating this stance last month, Syria's Ambassador to India, Riad Kamel Abbas, hailed New Delhi’s adherence to the United Nations Charter's call for non-interference and supporting political dialogue, yet called on India to play a bigger role in resolving the Syrian conflict. “We would really like India to play a more proactive role ... India is in a rare position where it has good relations with both Syria and the big world powers,” he said.
Abbas pointed out India's stake in the Syrian crisis: the rising influence of the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, which is a matter of grave concern to the Indian authorities. He noted the increasing presence of Indian jihadists in the Syrian war, a point he had first made in September 2013, when he added that Syria was “fighting terrorism on behalf of ... friends” and expected more political support from those friends – India included – at the United Nations in return.
New Delhi's responses to the Syrian civil war have mainly taken place in the UN Security Council, where it has tilted in favor of the Assad regime. In February 2011, India voted in favor of a UNSC draft resolution that would implement a peace plan proposed by the Arab League only after a call for Assad to step down was dropped. Then, in October that year, India abstained from a UNSC resolution condemning Assad’s crackdown on pro-democracy protests. The following August, it abstained from an UNGA resolution that expressed "grave concern" for the escalation of violence. The reason India gave for this decision was that the resolution referred to Arab League calls for Assad to step down and for UN member states to sever ties with Syria. Another Indian show of support for the Assad regime took place in 2013, when it backed the U.S.-Russia proposal for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons – thereby preventing military action against Damascus – and pledged USD 1 million toward this effort.
Yet, India has not taken the lead in defending Assad, restricting its role in diplomatic peace efforts to joint initiatives only. In 2013, India, Brazil and South Africa sent a delegation to meet with the Syrian government and reaffirm their commitment to a peaceful political solution. India largely steered clear of getting involved in the Syrian conflict, barring a muted presence at the January 2014 Geneva II conference. It was invited there by Russia, who sees India as an influential power that has remained unbiased throughout the conflict. India, however, stopped short of utilising the platform to leverage its relations with Assad to push for inclusive dialogue with the various rebel factions.
At the conference, then-Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid highlighted India’s stakes in the conflict, stating that India “shares deep historical and civilizational bonds with the wider West Asia and Gulf region. We have substantial interests in the fields of trade and investment, diaspora, remittances, energy and security. Any spill-over from the Syrian conflict has the potential of impacting negatively on our larger interests."
Politically, India’s stakes in Syria can also be viewed in a wider West Asian context, wherein New Delhi must secure its interests in the Sunni Arab world.
India has thus far managed to balance its relations with Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council states — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman — but changing circumstances in the Middle East are likely to make it tougher for New Delhi to tiptoe around regional polarizations. Intensifying Saudi-Iranian rivalry, as demonstrated in Yemen, and the rising influence of ISIS in India pose an immediate challenge to the government in New Delhi.
Moreover, the bigger geopolitical picture is changing with the end of the U.S.-Iranian nuclear standoff. The nuclear deal has opened up huge commercial and strategic opportunities for India and Iran after a decade of U.S. pressure to restrict ties. The Modi government has also emphasized his intention to bolster India’s economic and strategic complementarities with the GCC and Israel, adding another calculus to India’s Syria policy.
This changing environment could put New Delhi’s traditional balancing act to test. Given that it is assertively campaigning for permanent membership in the UN Security Council, the time is ripe for India to chart an independent foreign policy path. For as long as it shies away from playing a greater role in the Middle East, its desire to emerge as a major player in West Asia will remain unrealized.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.681149

I personally am in support of minor military role, if nothing else, it'll give us overseas military experience and will help Syrians in getting back to normality. As for India supporting Assad goes.. well, yes, he was an oh-so-oppressive dictator but atleast Syrians had a life in regime. I am not syrian, I don't know what it was like during his regime, but I don't it'd be a stretch to say most Syrians weren't being bombed out of existence or forced to run away to other countries. West's idealized obsession with freedoms and democrazy is costing real lives to other people, pretty sure no one in the west cares but still. A dictatorial regime that keeps things under control is better than the mess that a "free" syria is in today.

Several other reports are also pushing India into middle west and I think we should take it in a minor capacity.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 23 Oct 2015 09:05

GCC endorses media strategy to rectify image - Oct 23, 2015

Manama: Foreign media officials in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have stressed the need to formulate a common media strategy that will reflect the positive image of the six member countries abroad.

The officials, who were holding a meeting in the Qatari capital Doha, reviewed plans and suggestions for future actions in their communication drive with the international community.

The GCC, established in 1981, comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

“The participants discussed several issues related to the progress of their work, including a common strategy to rectify the distorted image that some Western media have about the countries in the region,” Ahmad Al Buainain, the head of the foreign media department at Qatar News Agency (QNA) said.

“The meeting also discussed several papers and new ideas regarding the way forward for the GCC foreign media in European and Asian countries in order to convey the realities on the ground, he said, quoted by QNA.

Plans include holding seminars and meetings with research centres or organizing events at international functions in Europe and in which the GCC countries are participating, he added.

“This new drive is a continuation of the activities conducted by the foreign media officials at past events,” he said.

Ahmed Mussa Al Dhabyan, the head of media cooperation at the GCC Secretariat General, said that the GCC foreign media officials sought to build on their successful experience and formulate a new strategy that matched the latest developments in the communication field.

“The world has gone beyond the global village concept and has now become a single house, {soon it will be become rest room}” he said. “The GCC has a significant political and economic weight and it has a special standing internationally, and therefore it needs to have a foreign media presence that matches its stature,” he said.

Recommendations endorsed by the participants will be referred to the GCC information ministers for discussion at their next meeting in the Saudi capital Riyadh, he added.

Foreign media departments in the GCC countries have been organizing GCC Days annually in a European or Asian city with a focus on bridging gaps by building cultural links with international communities in a bid to boost mutual understanding and ensure easier and direct communication at the official and popular levels.

The GCC Days have been organised in Paris, Brussels, Berlin, The Hague, Madrid, Rome, London and Seoul, Stockholm and Tokyo.

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 23 Oct 2015 10:14

india should not step into the middle eastern quagmire - we need all the money and funds available for our own development.

What we should do is assist the yezidis - these people have traces of indic roots, and have been the main victims of ISIS genocide. If we want a slice of the middle east pie - that is our only entry point.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Oct 2015 10:43

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/o ... iddle-east
Vladimir Putin accuses US of backing terrorism in Middle East
Russian president tells gathering of politicians that Washington is playing a ‘double game’ and acting in self-interest

Shaun Walker in Krasnaya Polyana
Thursday 22 October 2015 17.16 BST

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has launched a stinging attack on US policy in the Middle East, accusing Washington of backing terrorism and playing a “double game”.

In a speech on Thursday at the annual gathering of the Valdai Club, a group of Russian and international analysts and politicians, Putin said the US had attempted to use terrorist groups as “a battering ram to overthrow regimes they don’t like”.

He said: “It’s always hard to play a double game – to declare a fight against terrorists but at the same time try to use some of them to move the pieces on the Middle Eastern chessboard in your own favour. There’s no need to play with words and split terrorists into moderate and not moderate. I would like to know what the difference is.”

Western capitals have accused Moscow of targeting moderate rebel groups during its bombing campaign in Syria, which Russia says is mainly aimed at targets linked to Islamic State. However, Putin’s talk of “playing with words” and other statements by government officials suggest Moscow believes all armed opposition to Bashar al-Assad is a legitimate target.

Putin received Assad at the Kremlin on Tuesday, and on Thursday he underlined that he considered the Syrian president and his government to be “fully legitimate”. He said the west was guilty of shortsightedness, focusing on the figure of Assad while ignoring the much greater threat of Isis.

“The so-called Islamic State [Isis] has taken control of a huge territory. How was that possible? Think about it: if Damascus or Baghdad are seized by the terrorist groups, they will be almost the official authorities, and will have a launchpad for global expansion. Is anyone thinking about this or not?”

He added: “Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me that if a fight is inevitable, you have to hit first.”

Putin said it was “incorrect” to discuss whether or not Assad should step down, but said there was a need for dialogue.

“As far as I understand from my discussion with Assad, he’s ready for this,” said the Russian leader.

Putin said he asked Assad how he would react if Russia “found armed opposition groups who are really ready to fight terrorists” in Syria and decided to support them. Assad responded positively, according to Putin.

Asked how he saw the future of Syria and whether partition of the country could be an eventual solution, Putin said: “This would be the worst and most unacceptable option, and will not lead to the conflict being solved. It will make it worse and give it a permanent character. If you split the country into different parts they will fight among themselves forever, it will be unavoidable.”

Who backs whom in the Syrian conflict

This year the Valdai Club met at a luxury hotel in the mountain resort of Krasnaya Polyana, one of the venues for last year’s Winter Olympics. Putin arrived at the venue in a bright green Lada, part of an effort to promote the domestic car industry. He arrived late, keeping the assembled delegates waiting for nearly two hours before speaking.

A survey released on Thursday suggested that Putin’s approval rating had hit a record high of almost 90%, boosted by the Syrian airstrikes. His rating was 58.8% in January 2012 before a crackdown on opposition and the annexation of Crimea.

“Such a high level of approval for the work of the Russian president is linked, in the first instance, to events in Syria, to Russian airstrikes on terrorist positions there,” said the stat-run polling agency VTsIOM.

On the sidelines of the Valdai Club conference, Russia’s ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said the “only logical way” to explain Britain’s behaviour in Iraq and Syria was a desire that Isis would depose Assad.

“The idea was to remove Assad using force, and to use force to seize Damascus. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but this is the only way to explain why de facto neither Britain nor the US has ever properly fought against Isis,” Yakovenko said.

He said with the number of airstrikes Britain had carried out in Iraq, “you could have destroyed the whole region”, but instead Isis had only grown in strength.

An analysis by Reuters of Russian defence ministry data showed this week that almost 80% of Russia’s declared targets in Syria have been in areas not held by Isis. Yakovenko said he had a meeting at the Foreign Office in London last week in which he asked for intelligence to be shared on the location of Isis targets in Syria, but was rejected. He also asked for information on the Free Syrian Army.

“We are looking closely at the Syrian Free Army. We understand there is not a single command centre, and that some of these divisions have different goals. But if among the FSA there are divisions that are really ready to fight with Isis, who is our main enemy in Syria, and if you think there are people or commanders or other contacts which could be useful and to cooperate with them, we would be grateful for such information,” he said. “We were again rejected.”

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Oct 2015 17:34

when the dust has settled on this sorry episode, this will rank as one of the biggest goof-ups that unkil has ever committed. the saudi tail has well and truly wagged the big dog and everything is a hideous mess. neocons and oil lobby and their al-saud birathers...

Shanu · Post by **Shanu** » 23 Oct 2015 19:54

The Russian bombing in Syria seems to have some interesting consequences.

Recent Russian airstrikes on rebel-held territory have prompted a further exodus of people..group is leaving Syria -- bands of fighters with the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS -- to seek out a firmer foothold in North Africa.

Fear is not the only motivator. ISIS leaders have been calling for additional fighters in Libya, a virtually lawless country that could open doors for the group accross North Africa. Flush with weapons and in the chaotic throes of civil war, Libya has unmanned border crossings make it the perfect breeding ground for militant groups, including ISIS.

“I doubt the fighters could leave Syria of their own will to pursue such a project. They would need a higher order to authorize it,” said Middle East Forum Research Fellow Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi.

An increased ISIS presence in Libya could open up the entire North African arena for the militants and is by far the most strategic position for ISIS to have in Africa. Even without this new influx of fighters, ISIS has been able to coordinate attacks from Libya in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Tunisia over the past six months.

Libya is such an attractive proposition for the group because the country “contains a well of resources that cannot run dry," al-Qahtānī told Dabiq. It is also the promise of what Libya offers to the Libyan ISIS leader as the meeting point between Europe and Africa.

http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-airstrik ... rd-2146316

Falijee · Post by **Falijee** » 23 Oct 2015 23:07

Saudi Arabia Will Be In Financial Fall In Five Years - IMF
IMF: Saudi Arabia running on empty in five years
Gulf kingdom could deplete financial assets within five years as it struggles with slumping oil prices.

Saudi Arabia could burn through its financial assets within five years, as the country grapples with slumping oil prices.
The Middle East’s biggest economy is expected to run budget deficits of 21.6 percent in 2015 and 19.4 percent in 2016, according the IMF’s latest regional outlook.
That means Riyadh needs to find money to meet its spending plans. Just like its oil exporting neighbours, it plans to make substantial cuts to its budgets.
"For the region’s oil exporters, the fall in prices has led to large export revenue losses, amounting to a staggering $360bn this year alone," Masood Ahmed, the IMF’s Middle East director, told reporters in Dubai.

SA may be "running on empty" in the next five years; but the "Royal House" will have a "full tank" ; Allah only knows, how much of the oil revenue ( in billions) is skimmed right of the top, (by the corrupt princes ) before it ever gets booked on the Kingdoms books

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 23 Oct 2015 23:23

Something is cooking - Assad in Moscow, his advisor in Dilli seeking BRICS. I mean, their war is at a most critical stage, so aren't they needed 24-7 in Damascus 2 give stupid orders?

Forward the Light Brigade!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Oct 2015 01:58

Alka_P wrote:Will India Become the Next Big Player in the Syrian War?: Haaretz

What do we know regarding who is on whose side?

What we need in the Middle East is a strong Mitanni Kingdom - the Kurds! Kurds is the party around whom India should build our Middle East Foreign Policy.

That means we ought to be willing to screw everybody else - the Turks, the Iranians, ISIS and basically everybody else who stands in our way!

Kurds however need massive military and intelligence support, in order to ward off ISIS and Turkey and at some point the Iranians too.

What do the Syrians give us? They give us a possible route to land-locked Kurdistan!

If India gets involved, the benefits have to be tangible - we want to be allied with the next biggest ME power - Kurdistan - consisting of parts of Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Oct 2015 02:58

http://warontherocks.com/2015/10/can-ob ... -strategy/
CAN OBAMA TAKE ADVICE? REFLECTIONS ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND AMERICAN STRATEGY

Authored By BRF Failed Brofessor

( Agyani Banneh Gyani, Did we not Try to Teach The Teacher?)

The Bush Administration idiotically got us deeply involved in 2003 — the mistake from which most of our troubles have flowed. Our real interests, and in particular our economic interests, lie in Asia. The Europeans will have to learn to handle refugee flows on their own. Admittedly, many Middle Eastern terrorists would like to attack us, but they have their hands full with local enemies, and for those who want to target North America we have drones and special operators.We have all the oil and natural gas we need: our geo-economic interests in the region are negligible. The Russians and Iranians want to pacify Syria? Fine. Let them try it and see what happens — both will get bled by it, which is fine with us. Besides, the Sunni Arab states will naturally act to balance Persian Shi‘a power.
And really, who wants to engage deeply in the politics of peoples whose main activities seems to be holding days of rage, and engaging in bouts of suicide-bombing and beheading? The Israelis can take care of themselves, not that we care for them all that much anyway. Humanitarian concerns about the rest? A pity, but we cannot go around solving all the world’s problems. We are, in a word, realists, unlike our soft-headed critics on left and right.ew observers would disagree with Cohen’s analysis that political decision-making in this administration is highly centralized in the Oval Office, although some might disagree with his characterization of President Obama’s views. It is, however, possible to take the same data Cohen uses and come up with a very different articulation of the administration’s concerns — one that sounds a little less arrogant (a major portion of Cohen’s critique).A more charitable description of administration strategy in the Middle East might consider the following.It believes other threats may be emerging that are more serious in terms of American and global interests (i.e., China and the pivot/rebalance).It believes the United States has no reasonable chance of resolving Syria’s civil war in the near term, regardless of the strength and intensity of our involvement.It does not believe there will be public support for another protracted occupation in the Middle East.
It may simply be that the resources necessary to “fix” the Syrian civil war and its attendant consequences are needed elsewhere, and that for the first time in a generation CENTCOM is no longer the priority theater.Turmoil in the region, however, is no longer necessarily the top priority of the United States. According to Gen. Joseph Dunford, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the most serious threats to the United States, in rank order, are Russia, China, North Korea, and then the Islamic State (Iran and Al Qaeda did not make the top four). During the last ten years, great power competitors have re-emerged in areas where the United States has longer-term commitments and interests: Europe and the Pacific Rim. The National Military Strategy of 2015 discusses our global networks and partnerships in a very specific order — Asia, Europe, and only then the Middle East. After 25 years of focused attention, CENTCOM now has to compete for resources and priority.For a generation, the United States has, at great expense, attempted to impose stability on the Middle East, using all the tools of national policy. For fifteen years, vast military resources have failed to achieve long-term U.S. objectives — regional stability, a shift toward democratic governance, and eroding support for transnational terrorism. Our inability to convert dominant military force into meaningful strategic success in both Iraq and Afghanistan provides little reason for optimism that expanded intervention in Syria will have quick, decisive success.
In an unstable global environment, where do we accept risk? The Obama administration has chosen to accept it in the Levant, containing both the Islamic State and the Syrian civil war rather than intervening with force (although this certainly is not articulated policy). I suspect Cohen is right in stating that this policy will hold for sixteen months, barring some genuinely disastrous new event. As we “… renew our understanding of the world …”we may want to consider that we no longer have the relative power or the freedom of action to engage heavily in the Middle East without affecting our interests elsewhere. The generation-long luxury of the unipolar moment is either waning or squandered, depending on one’s point of view, due to the emergence of great power competitors and of social forces apparently beyond our control. We would do well to soberly consider the limits of power — especially military power — after a long period of exercising it relatively freely but, arguably, unsuccessfully. The objective of strategy, after all, is to calibrate available resources to achieve political aims; and if those aims are overly ambitious, like fixing a broken Syria or ending Sunni–Shi’a conflict, or are ill-suited to our available means or public support, we may find ourselves bankrupt when threats to more significant interests arise.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 24 Oct 2015 03:04

Something is cooking - Assad in Moscow, his advisor in Dilli seeking BRICS. I mean, their war is at a most critical stage, so aren't they needed 24-7 in Damascus 2 give stupid orders?
Forward the Light Brigade!

Loan to rebuild country BRIC by BRIC??

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Oct 2015 04:18

Jhujar wrote:
Can Obama take Advice? tim hoyt

CAN OBAMA TAKE ADVICE? REFLECTIONS ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND AMERICAN STRATEGY

Authored By BRF Failed Brofessor ( Agyani Banneh Gyani, Did we not Try to Teach The Teacher?)

The Bush Administration idiotically got us deeply involved in 2003 — the mistake from which most of our troubles have flowed. Our real interests, and in particular our economic interests, lie in Asia. The Europeans will have to learn to handle refugee flows on their own. Admittedly, many Middle Eastern terrorists would like to attack us, but they have their hands full with local enemies, and for those who want to target North America we have drones and special operators.We have all the oil and natural gas we need: our geo-economic interests in the region are negligible. The Russians and Iranians want to pacify Syria? Fine. Let them try it and see what happens — both will get bled by it, which is fine with us. Besides, the Sunni Arab states will naturally act to balance Persian Shi‘a power.
And really, who wants to engage deeply in the politics of peoples whose main activities seems to be holding days of rage, and engaging in bouts of suicide-bombing and beheading? The Israelis can take care of themselves, not that we care for them all that much anyway. Humanitarian concerns about the rest? A pity, but we cannot go around solving all the world’s problems. We are, in a word, realists, unlike our soft-headed critics on left and right.ew observers would disagree with Cohen’s analysis that political decision-making in this administration is highly centralized in the Oval Office, although some might disagree with his characterization of President Obama’s views. It is, however, possible to take the same data Cohen uses and come up with a very different articulation of the administration’s concerns — one that sounds a little less arrogant (a major portion of Cohen’s critique).A more charitable description of administration strategy in the Middle East might consider the following.It believes other threats may be emerging that are more serious in terms of American and global interests (i.e., China and the pivot/rebalance).It believes the United States has no reasonable chance of resolving Syria’s civil war in the near term, regardless of the strength and intensity of our involvement.It does not believe there will be public support for another protracted occupation in the Middle East.
It may simply be that the resources necessary to “fix” the Syrian civil war and its attendant consequences are needed elsewhere, and that for the first time in a generation CENTCOM is no longer the priority theater.Turmoil in the region, however, is no longer necessarily the top priority of the United States. According to Gen. Joseph Dunford, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the most serious threats to the United States, in rank order, are Russia, China, North Korea, and then the Islamic State (Iran and Al Qaeda did not make the top four). During the last ten years, great power competitors have re-emerged in areas where the United States has longer-term commitments and interests: Europe and the Pacific Rim. The National Military Strategy of 2015 discusses our global networks and partnerships in a very specific order — Asia, Europe, and only then the Middle East. After 25 years of focused attention, CENTCOM now has to compete for resources and priority.For a generation, the United States has, at great expense, attempted to impose stability on the Middle East, using all the tools of national policy. For fifteen years, vast military resources have failed to achieve long-term U.S. objectives — regional stability, a shift toward democratic governance, and eroding support for transnational terrorism. Our inability to convert dominant military force into meaningful strategic success in both Iraq and Afghanistan provides little reason for optimism that expanded intervention in Syria will have quick, decisive success.
In an unstable global environment, where do we accept risk? The Obama administration has chosen to accept it in the Levant, containing both the Islamic State and the Syrian civil war rather than intervening with force (although this certainly is not articulated policy). I suspect Cohen is right in stating that this policy will hold for sixteen months, barring some genuinely disastrous new event. As we “… renew our understanding of the world …”we may want to consider that we no longer have the relative power or the freedom of action to engage heavily in the Middle East without affecting our interests elsewhere. The generation-long luxury of the unipolar moment is either waning or squandered, depending on one’s point of view, due to the emergence of great power competitors and of social forces apparently beyond our control. We would do well to soberly consider the limits of power — especially military power — after a long period of exercising it relatively freely but, arguably, unsuccessfully. The objective of strategy, after all, is to calibrate available resources to achieve political aims; and if those aims are overly ambitious, like fixing a broken Syria or ending Sunni–Shi’a conflict, or are ill-suited to our available means or public support, we may find ourselves bankrupt when threats to more significant interests arise.

Obama was backed by his supporters to withdraw from foreign entanglements which were sucking the Amercian dream empty.

He has done that: Iraq, Afghanistan,.

Same time he had to creat mess to occupy others: Libya, Ukraine and now Syria.

KSA, Sunni Muddle East is in mess with bringing Shia Iran out of quarantine.

So why should he take advise when he is doing well?

tim lets talk here.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Oct 2015 04:38

ramana wrote:
Jhujar wrote: Same time he had to creat mess to occupy others: Libya, Ukraine and now Syria.
KSA, Sunni Muddle East is in mess with bringing Shia Iran out of quarantine.
So why should he take advise when he is doing well?
tim lets talk here.

First, This mess is good for civilised world as long as it is quarantined in certain quarters.
Second , this is the natural living equilibrium between S & S and ought to be sustained for long time to prohibit surplus resources allocated for global Jihad.
Let no one lose or win the war as it won't be just to either party o the keen watchers .

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Oct 2015 14:31

Saudi Arabia: Eight of the 12 surviving sons of country's monarch support move to oust King Salman - Hugh Miles | The Independent

Eight of the 12 surviving sons of Saudi Arabia's founding monarch are supporting a move to oust King Salman, 79, the country's ailing ruler, and replace him with his 73-year-old brother, according to a dissident prince.

The prince also claims that a clear majority of the country's powerful Islamic clerics, known as the Ulama, would back a palace coup to oust the current King and install Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz, a former Interior Minister, in his place. "The Ulama and religious people prefer Prince Ahmed - not all of them, but 75 per cent," said the prince, himself a grandson of King Ibn Saud, who founded the ruling dynasty in 1932.

Support from the clerics would be vital for any change of monarch, since in the Saudi system only they have the power to confer religious and therefore political legitimacy on the leadership.

The revelation suggests there is increasing pressure within the normally secretive Saudi royal family to bring to a head the internal power struggle that has erupted since King Salman inherited the throne at the beginning of this year. The prince, who cannot be named for security reasons, is the author of two recently published letters calling for the royal family to replace the current Saudi leadership.

In 1964 King Saud was finally deposed after a long power struggle, when the majority of senior royal family members and the Kingdom's religious establishment spoke with one voice and withdrew their support. The prince says something similar is going to happen again soon.

"Either the King will leave Saudi Arabia, like King Saud, and he will be very respected inside and outside the country," he told The Independent. "Alternatively Prince Ahmed will become Crown Prince, but with control of and responsibility for the whole country - the economy, oil, armed forces, national guard, interior ministry, secret service, in fact everything from A to Z."

Unhappiness at King Salman's own diminishing faculties - he is reported to be suffering from Alzheimer's disease - has been compounded by his controversial appointments, the continuing and costly war in Yemen and the recent Hajj disaster. Earlier this week the International Monetary Fund warned that Saudi Arabia may run out of financial assets within five years unless the government sharply curbs its spending, because of a combination of low oil prices and the economic impact of regional wars.

The King's appointment of his favourite son, Mohammed bin Salman, 30, to the novel post of Deputy Crown Prince in April, and the decision to make him Defence Minister - enabling him to launch a proxy war in Yemen against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who forced the pro-Saudi former President to flee - have heightened tensions. He is said to have assumed too much power and wealth since being elevated to this position. "Any paper or phone call to his father goes through him," said the prince. The current Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, 56, a nephew of King Salman, is also unpopular.

Prince Ahmed, the man most family members support to take over the throne, is the youngest son of the Kingdom's founder by his favourite wife, Hassa bint Ahmed Al Sudairi. He was deputy interior minister for 37 years and spent four years responsible for the religious sites in Mecca before being appointed Interior Minister in 2012.

He left the post five months later, officially at his own request, and was replaced by Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, now the Crown Prince. The dissident prince claims Prince Ahmed left after a disagreement about the treatment of political detainees.

"Prince Ahmed wants to introduce reforms like freedom of thought, cleaning up the justice system and freeing political prisoners who don't have anything to do with terrorism," he said.

"Many political prisoners have been in prison since before 2001 because of their wise opinion and their moderate Islamic views. If Prince Ahmed has the authority he will allow such people out."

Prince Ahmed, who has a Master's degree in political science, is favoured by clerics and by others within the royal family because of his professional experience and moderate lifestyle, according to the prince. "The eldest brothers want him because he is healthy and wise, and he has been clean all his life. He is not in trouble with gambling, women, drink or drugs.

"Prince Ahmed likes the desert, hunting and sitting by the Red Sea or in Taif, by the mountains. He is religious but open-minded, he knows English and follows the world news."

The current King's third wife, Fahda Al Hithlain, is said by the prince to be another key figure. "She is Mohammed bin Salman's mother and has influence on his father," he said. "The King is in love with her and so he is in love with Mohammed bin Salman." However, because of ill health she has reportedly spent little time in Saudi Arabia recently.

The struggle to remove King Saud took several years and led to tension between Saudi Arabia's main armed organisations - the army, interior ministry and national guard - before finally he left without bloodshed. The prince expects the same will happen this time. "It is a kind of internal revolution. We want financial and political reform, freedom of thought and cleaning the justice system, freeing the political prisoners and proper Islamic sharia," he said.

The Saudi embassy in London did not respond to a request for comment.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 24 Oct 2015 18:33

Cool... if the 8 survivors are reduced to zero, ISIS/ Al Qaeda can take over the Holiest Places and Save the Ummah.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 24 Oct 2015 19:16

Clock boy may not enjoy his time in Qatar!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/23 ... cmp=hplnws

Gotta luv Fox News...... thank you Mr. Murdock.

Them Qataris are pretty tough alright......

Hopefully Clock Boy will enjoy his training in a Qatari financed base camp.

Then come back to the US as a future American in Waiting and jiiiihhhhaaaad......

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Oct 2015 19:32

As oil prices fall without any immediate possibility of resuscitation, and as the reserves which were earlier assessed to last over a century mysteriously disappear, the Kingdom will face palace coups, will get entangled in various conflagrations all around its border (Yemen, Iran, Qatar and Bahrain) that will backfire, the useless and hotheaded Royal family and the uncontrolled profligacy of the thousand princes will lead it to utter ruin. The process of a white dwarf is well under way.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 24 Oct 2015 19:44

the demand is not there. China as well as western and sovereign state hedge funds over played their hands on speculation of oil. they thought it was the new gold standard.

they found out there is no such thing as a "gold standard" and no nation wants to guarantee the price of it whether it is oil or anything else.

any pricing structure not based on global national economy demands for food and production of goods and services is a horse s**t bubble waiting to burst.

and oil at $130 a bbl was beyond any basis of the global economy.

I was reading an oil market report that conducted a scarcity poll of the leading oil company execs when oil was at $130.

All of the execs said they had plenty for now and well into the future. I knew at that point the mother of all bubbles was going down and splat.

Unfortunately I didn't have the intestinal fortitude to start shorting.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 25 Oct 2015 04:18

I have never understood how we changed from "Peak Oil Is Here!" in 2004 to "oil glut" in 2015. Fracking made that much difference?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Oct 2015 07:39

UlanBatori wrote:I have never understood how we changed from "Peak Oil Is Here!" in 2004 to "oil glut" in 2015. Fracking made that much difference?

Number of reason:

Fracking , OPEC not sticking to its own quota for production producing about a million barrel more oil , lower demand