The Middle East part 2

[Thunderbird 0]

Stop generalizing a whole context for the words of one or 2 people

[quicksand 0]

Multi-candidate presidential elections approved

Quote[/b] ]Egyptian legislators in one chamber voted Saturday for the holding of presidential elections with more than one candidate.

A week after President Hosni Mubarak announced that multiple candidates should stand for president and ordered parliament to amend the constitution to do so; the 264 members in the upper house of parliament unanimously voted for the constitutional amendment which would sanction such a ballot.

The upper house, or Shura Council, is half elected by popular vote, half appointed by Mubarak.

Safwat al-Sherif, the speaker of the Shura Council, made the announcement that the amendment to article 76 - the law in question - will go ahead.

Al-Sherif also called upon political parties to participate in the presidential vote.

However, the amendment still needs to be approved by parliament's lower house, and no date is set on when it will meet to discuss the change.

It will be the first time in Egypt's modern history that the country can vote for more than one presidential candidate.

Previously people had to vote "yes" or "no" for a single candidate approved by both houses of parliament.

The comment right at the end of the article made reading this story all worth it twice more.

Quote[/b] ]one more step forward for the tide of change in the middle east. president hosni mubarak has done the right thing, more needs to be done in the future at egypts pace. thank you mr bush.

Name:Mr Billybob from USA

[theavonlady 2]

Stop generalizing a whole context for the words of one or 2 people

Stop generalizing falsehood about my people and country.

[Acecombat 0]

More Arab rivisionist history. Hey you modern day colonizer of Europe, look who's talking?!

Quote[/b] ]The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement....We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home....We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other.

- Emir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, the leader of Arab nationalism, 1919

Quote[/b] ]“Our settlers do not come here as do the colonists from the Occident to have natives do their work for them; they themselves set their shoulders to the plow and they spend their strength and their blood to make the land fruitful. But it is not only for ourselves that we desire its fertility. The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively; we desire to teach them further: together with them we want to cultivate the land -- to 'serve' it, as the Hebrew has it. The more fertile this soil becomes, the more space there will be for us and for them. We have no desire to dispossess them: we want to live with them. We do not want to dominate them: we want to serve with them.....â€

— Martin Buber,  Jewish theologian and philosopher, 1939

Words are cheap avon what those people you quoted was right but how much of it was followed through? I can quote lots of things from the Quran as well and other eminent islamic personalities on how a muslim should lead his life but HOW many actually follow that?

We all know there was a dark side to the creation of Israel , (NOTE: I am not against jews having their own country , they deserve having one , but over how it went through the process of getting it without any consultation with the people who were living here and this includes people of all religions and nationalitys who called this piece of land their home) but not over the cost of killing others to remove them and sanitize the land to pave way for the arrival of their brethren.Read the beginning of this thread , the very start when Bernadotte was around i think this topic was dicsussed back then in very detail.

[theavonlady 2]

Words are cheap avon what those people you quoted was right but how much of it was followed through?

None of it. Pan Arabia rejected it from day 2.

Quote[/b] ]We all know there was a dark side to the creation of Israel

No we don't.

Quote[/b] ](NOTE: I am not against jews having their own country , they deserve having one , but over how it went through the process of getting it without any consultation with the people who were living here and this includes people of all religions and nationalitys who called this piece of land their home)

So where was this Pan-Arab suggestion for Jews to have their own country, which you claim to advocate?

Quote[/b] ]but not over the cost of killing others to remove them

Who tried to exterminate whom here? Who rioted against whom in all major cities in the 20's and 30's, yelling "Itbach al yahud" throughout the country?

Quote[/b] ]and sanitize the land to pave way for the arrival of their brethren.

Another great lie. Lousy sanitizers we turned out to be with 20% of our countrymen being Christian and Moslem Arabs. Must have been a wee little oversite.

[Thunderbird 0]

you don't admit the errors that your country has done in the past, and you're ready to do anything to approve your 'words', I've the impression to talk with a Soviet...

Why don't you wanna to accept the truth ?? not my thruth but the real truth ??

[Nemesis6 0]

After the second world war, why the Arab and Moslem world had to pay for the crimes of the Christian world by offering to Israel a territory which has belonged to the Arab people for 7 centuries ?

1947-1948-1949 : 800 000 poor palestinian persons've left their territory,their family,their history,their past,their honor for your country

1967 , after the war against the arabic countries , you've invaded a lot of arabic and muslim territories, the arabic countries haven't attacked Israel to invade "your" territory , but to oblige you to stop extending your territory while making flee the local inhabitants

1982 : The Israeli army've encouraged the massacres of Sabra and Chatila by killing One hundred poor and innocent palestinian s, and before you've invaded the Lebanon by killing a lot of innocents for only 100 Palestinian fighters...

And actually your colonies don't stop extending , with the US help you've actually a state , an army , maybe nuke and what do the poor palestinian people get ?? stones and kamikazes

Have u already one time of your life tried to understand why palestinian go to kill themselves in your country ??

The Despair

the despair to see one day a Free palestinian country with its own autority , an official country as the others...

its people've fought and still fighting.... and why ?

have you already tried one time in your like to understand why have they fought ?

for a hope , a hope of a better life...a life as yours and as your neighbours...

To your first statement - Judaism had a base in "Palestine" a long, long time before Muhammed ever walked the earth.

1948 - Those 800.000 + Arabs either left their country willingly or were goaded withjthe following sentence from several Arab leaders - "Get out so we can get in!". Some, as I stated, were goaded to leave, while others left, hoping that Israel would be destroyed when they came back. It wasn't, thus, this is not Israel's fault. To make things worse, the surrounding Arab countries are denying these "refugees" to enter. Come to think of it, it makes sense - Keep the "refugees" out, and they become a powerful propaganda tool.

1967 - After some thorough research into this war, I can say that it was more or less the Arab countries that initiated the hostilities.

1982 - The Israeli army had nothing to do with this, neither did Ariel Sharon. Elie Hobeika is your man.

Avon - "Itbach al yahud!", that's "Mevat l'yehudim!" in Hebrew, right?

[Placebo 29]

Let's see how this goes.....

If the level of conversation returns to one liner quoted bickering you risk losing this and other "political" threads, if the conversation returns to one liner "opinions" above or beneath quoted news items you risk losing this and other "political" threads.

The thread is here for discussions, if you have neither the time or inclination to discuss then refrain from posting in the thread.

[ralphwiggum 6]

.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/01/fahd.obit/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Saudi Arabia's King Fahd -- whose reign was marked by unprecedented prosperity, but whose close ties with the United States stirred the passions of Islamic militants -- has died, Saudi officials announced Monday. He was 82.

The Saudi monarch had been in and out of the hospital in recent months, most recently suffering from pneumonia-like symptoms. Fahd yielded day-to-day control of the kingdom a decade ago after suffering a stroke, with Crown Prince Abdullah serving as the de facto ruler since then.

Fahd assumed the throne on June 13, 1982, becoming the fifth king of Saudi Arabia. He was the son of King Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Saud, the founder of the modern Saudi Arabia.

"I will be father to the young, brother to the elderly," he once said. "I am but one of you; whatever troubles you, troubles me; whatever pleases you, pleases me."

The Saudi monarch was held in high esteem across the Arab and Muslim worlds because of his role as the custodian of the two holy mosques -- the major shrines of Islam in Mecca and Medina.

As king, he supervised projects to facilitate the hajj for the more than 2 million pilgrims from around the world who visit each year. Under his rule, Mecca was expanded to 3.5 million square feet to accommodate 1 million worshippers; Medina has grown to nearly 1.8 million square feet to accommodate 500,000 people, according to his official biography.

He was also an ardent supporter of the mujahedeen in the 1980s in their fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- where Saudi-born terror leader Osama bin Laden first gained a following.

But it was Fahd's decision to allow U.S. forces to be based out of Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq that outraged Islamic fundamentalists, including bin Laden who criticized his homeland for allowing "infidels" to attack another Arab country from its soil.

The United States also used a highly secret base in the kingdom to conduct special operations from during the early days of the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Al Qaeda terrorists have launched several attacks inside the kingdom in recent years. And 15 of the 19 hijackers in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States were from Saudi Arabia -- a fact that did not sit well with many in Washington who have been skeptical of the kingdom.

But the Bush administration has remained staunchly behind the kingdom since 9/11, calling Riyadh a key ally in the war on terror.

"The Saudis have been very aggressive in hunting down the terrorist cells that are in Saudi Arabia and we've had a good deal of success also on the terrorist financing front," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during a foreign policy speech in May 2005.

Born in 1923, Fahd attended one of the kingdom's first educational institutions during his youth, and in 1953 he became Saudi's first minister of education.

For the next two decades, he served increasingly important roles, including interior minister, deputy prime minister and crown prince. In 1977, he met with U.S. President Jimmy Carter and U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance about the importance of American involvement in trying to forge a lasting settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"I believe the U.S. can play an important part in solving the problem if we take into account not only American influence worldwide, but also the strong relationship between America and Israel," he said at the time.

He continued to try to work for Mideast peace over the years, including on his first visit to the United States as king in 1985 when met with President Ronald Reagan about the need for a renewed American role in the Mideast peace process.

During Fahd's tenure, the kingdom saw an economic, agricultural and educational transformation, building on its oil wealth to become an international and regional power.

"With the blessing and grace of Almighty God and with the assistance of the faithful Saudi people, we shall continue the welfare march of construction and development and maintain the gains which are reflected by comprehensive achievements in various fields," he recently said.

wonder how this will affect the whole dynamics of Mid east region...

[theavonlady 2]

So, Fahd kicked the barrel?

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]wonder how this will affect the whole dynamics of Mid east region...

Quite a bit actually you know. Fahad was a different sort of person to Abdullah (his successor) , Fahad was more progressive minded and he was the only one among the current crop of royals inbound to the throne who was educated well enough , he was also SA's first education minister. Fahad was also the more lenient and less aggressive type of guy that abdullah is. Anyhow his health was deterioting so its no surprise hes gone , lets just hope Abdullah proves himself more useful then i think he actually is.

[Bernadotte 0]

To your first statement - Judaism had a base in "Palestine" a long, long time before Muhammed ever walked the earth.

So what?  

1948 - Those 800.000 + Arabs either left their country willingly or were goaded withjthe following sentence from several Arab leaders - "Get out so we can get in!". Some, as I stated, were goaded to leave, while others left, hoping that Israel would be destroyed when they came back. It wasn't, thus, this is not Israel's fault.

If you travel abroad is your country able to keep you from returning to your property and possessions depending on your ethnicity and what your country believes you are thinking?  Didn't think so.  According to article 13 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country."

1967 - After some thorough research into this war, I can say that it was more or less the Arab countries that initiated the hostilities.

Please show me how you arrived at this conclusion.  

1982 - The Israeli army had nothing to do with this, neither did Ariel Sharon. Elie Hobeika is your man.

Oh really?  According to Israel's official investigation, Sharon had a lot to do with it:

Quote[/b] ]We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense [Ariel Sharon] bears personal responsibility.

[Daddl 10]

To your first statement - Judaism had a base in "Palestine" a long, long time before Muhammed ever walked the earth.

So what?

Uhm, answering 5 month old posts???

To add something usefull to the actual topic:

Isn't Abdullah nearly as old as Fahd was? So who will be the real successor (the one after Abdullah)? Who are the potential candidates and what's their agenda?

[Bernadotte 0]

Uhm, answering 5 month old posts???  

Uhm, doing a poor imitation of a moderator???

[Acecombat 0]

To your first statement - Judaism had a base in "Palestine" a long, long time before Muhammed ever walked the earth.

So what?  

Uhm, answering 5 month old posts???  

To add something usefull to the actual topic:

Isn't Abdullah nearly as old as Fahd was? So who will be the real successor (the one after Abdullah)? Who are the potential candidates and what's their agenda?

Yeah nearly but the black (henna/clairol) coloured hair hardly betrays that   .

I think abdullah will still manage 10 years though , hsi health is in no imminent danger unless some accident or disaster strikes from the blue he'll be fine. Though the guy after him is Prince Sultan , he's a real humorous guy i've yet to see him frown or not smiling in public/press pics videos and i think hes a moderate as well like Fahad unlike Abdullah whos a bit of a hardliner.

[Daddl 10]

So how old is Prince Sultan?

Quote[/b] ]HRH Prince Sultan was born in Riyadh on the 5th of January, 1928 (13th of Rajab, 1346 H). On 2/6/1947 (17th of Rajab, 1366 H), King Abdul Aziz appointed him Governor of the Riyadh Region. On the formation of Saudi Arabia's first Council of Ministers on 24/12/1953 (18/4/1373 H), he was appointed Minister of Agriculture, which allowed him to give special attention to the Bedouin Resettlement Project. On 5th November, 1955 (21/3/1375 H), he was appointed Minister of Communications. Prince Sultan was appointed Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General on 13/10/1962 (15/5/1382 H). Ever since, the Saudi ground, air, naval and civil defense forces have undergone swift development. In 1982 (1402 H), he was appointed Second Deputy Premier, in addition to his previous post as Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General. In this capacity, he chairs some Council of Ministers sessions. Prince Sultan chairs a host of organizations and committees of various specializations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

You sure seem to have a series of quick successions ahead!!!

[Acecombat 0]

So how old is Prince Sultan?  

Quote[/b] ]HRH Prince Sultan was born in Riyadh on the 5th of January, 1928 (13th of Rajab, 1346 H). On 2/6/1947 (17th of Rajab, 1366 H), King Abdul Aziz appointed him Governor of the Riyadh Region. On the formation of Saudi Arabia's first Council of Ministers on 24/12/1953 (18/4/1373 H), he was appointed Minister of Agriculture, which allowed him to give special attention to the Bedouin Resettlement Project. On 5th November, 1955 (21/3/1375 H), he was appointed Minister of Communications. Prince Sultan was appointed Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General on 13/10/1962 (15/5/1382 H). Ever since, the Saudi ground, air, naval and civil defense forces have undergone swift development. In 1982 (1402 H), he was appointed Second Deputy Premier, in addition to his previous post as Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General. In this capacity, he chairs some Council of Ministers sessions. Prince Sultan chairs a host of organizations and committees of various specializations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

You sure seem to have a series of quick successions ahead!!!

Wont make too much of a difference IMO , most of these trio of brothers have nearly the same outlook and policys and cabinet.

[denoir 0]

Who will come after? As I understand about half of Saudi Arabia's population are princes.  

Anyway, a bit on Iran:

EU warns Iran over nuclear plans [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

Top EU countries have warned Iran they will cut off talks on the nuclear issue if it goes ahead with plans to resume nuclear activities.

France, Britain and Germany said they would be forced to take "other courses of action" if dialogue failed. French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said Tehran could be referred to the UN Security Council.

Iran has responded by saying threats are not the solution, and insists it will not cede its "legitimate rights".

A spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council said the decision to resume conversion of uranium at the Isfahan plant was irreversible.

The foreign ministers of France, Germany and the UK, as well as EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, made their warning clear in a joint letter to the Iranian authorities on Tuesday.

"Were Iran to resume currently suspended activities, our negotiations would be brought to an end and we would have no option but to pursue other courses of action," the letter said.

"We therefore call upon Iran not to resume suspended activities or take other unilateral steps."

France, Britain and Germany have so far resisted calls by the United States to take Iran to the UN, hoping that the crisis can be defused in talks.

The three EU countries are due to deliver full proposals within a week for nuclear, economic and political co-operation with Iran, provided it ends all nuclear activities. Iran had reached an agreement with the EU trio to suspend nuclear processing last November - but on Monday announced it was set to resume uranium conversion.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the affair was "very serious" and warned of "a major international crisis".

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza responded by saying Iran would not abandon its "legitimate rights" to carry out peaceful nuclear activities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"The time for threats and intimidation is over," he is quoted as saying by state news agency Irna.

However, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called Iran's latest position "threatening", and said the EU, US and Russia would remain united in opposing it.

France and Washington now appear to be in agreement on referring Iran to the UN Security Council. BBC Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the step is likely to mean the end of two years of European efforts to engage Iran in dialogue.

Iranian officials had said the seals on the Isfahan plant would be removed on Monday night, but there has been a delay in the international inspectors setting up their cameras and mechanisms for supervising the process. The initial reaction is likely to be an emergency board meeting of the IAEA in Vienna, but there appears to be growing momentum behind referral to the Security Council, our correspondent says.

Iran says it is not worried about referral to the UN - partly because it is confident international inspectors have not found proof of an existing weapons programme, and partly because it hopes for the support of its trading partners Russia and China in the Security Council, our correspondent says.

This is so pathetic. The EU is talking and doing nothing but talking, the US is stonewalling Iran and pretending like it doesn't exist. In the meantime the Iranians are playing games and continuing their nuclear program. Unlike Iraq, Iran is the real thing when it comes to nukes. If there was ever a need for for military threats, now's the time to do it. And given that the US has a serious military presence next doors, it should not be difficult to scare the Iranians enough to take the diplomatic efforts seriously.

I think this really highlights the need for European and American cooperation in world affairs. Starting wars is bad, but you need to back up diplomacy with a credible threat of force. It seems to me that a working good cop/bad cop routine is quite possible.

Unfortunately after the Iraq war, it doesn't seem very realistic at this point. Sure, America demonstrated that it could do the "bad cop" part - i.e that it had little hesitation to use force, but as the post-war situation is such a mess and the public support for another war would be very weak, America is no longer a credible threat. And Europe alone hasn't got the military resources, and especially not the political will to actually use force. So we'll just keep talking, making new concessions and deals that the Iranians will happily break. I sincerely doubt there's even enough will to impose economic sanctions on Iran.

In the UN SC, Russia and China are complete wildcards. An EU-Chinese deal on Iran would perhaps be possible, but there are no guarantees and overall that is not enough to actually influence the situation.

[red oct 2]

sanctions might be more effective, not to many nations are able prosper w/out being in the WTO. plus the younger generations don't seem to have much love for their ayatollah's at the moment and seem kind of friendly to westerners. trade sanctions might cause the government to collaspe or even overthrown.

[Bernadotte 0]

If there was ever a need for for military threats, now's the time to do it. And given that the US has a serious military presence next doors, it should not be difficult to scare the Iranians enough to take the diplomatic efforts seriously.

Hans Blix disagrees:

Quote[/b] ]Hans Blix, the former UN chief weapons inspector said yesterday that the best way to make Iran cease was for the US to guarantee it would <span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'>not</span> seek regime change.

Some questions:

What international law or regulation is Iran breaking?

From what I read prior to this latest crisis, the EU group was delaying an offer of aid.  Why the delay?

Assuming Iran is violating some international law then why should the EU have to offer aid in the first place?

And why are Iran's rich Gulf neighbours not concerned enough to offer aid instead of the EU?

I really don't know much about this situation, but it does remind me a little about what happened with N. Korea.  There too, NK resumed enrichment when the Clinton admin ended up falling way behind with providing aid and safer alternative nuke technology.

I just hope this isn't another of those situations where a particular nation has to abide by a set of stict anti-nuke rules enforced by nations that already have nukes.

[denoir 0]

What international law or regulation is Iran breaking?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed.

Quote[/b] ]From what I read prior to this latest crisis, the EU group was delaying an offer of aid. Why the delay?

Not aid, but Russian nuclear fuel. Because Iran was not sticking to the agreed agenda.

Quote[/b] ]Assuming Iran is violating some international law then why should the EU have to offer aid in the first place?

To give them an incentive to follow the rules.

Quote[/b] ]And why are Iran's rich Gulf neighbours not concerned enough to offer aid instead of the EU?

You mean like Israel? Israel opts for the bomb first, ask questions later solution. As for the Arab countries, both the OIC and the GCC have expressed support for the EU negotiations.

Quote[/b] ]I really don't know much about this situation, but it does remind me a little about what happened with N. Korea. There too, NK resumed enrichment when the Clinton admin ended up falling way behind with providing aid and safer alternative nuke technology.

NK resumed their enrichment program, with the explicit purpose of building nukes in 2002, as a response to the "Axis of Evil" speech. In 2004 they admitted that they indeed were building nukes. And as of 2005 they have a couple of them.

As for under Clinton, they weren't falling behind in aid, but they refused to lift the sanctions and restore full diplomatic relations because NK wasn't living up to its part of the agreement. In 1999 NK started making threats, but did nothing until 2002.

Quote[/b] ]I just hope this isn't another of those situations where a particular nation has to abide by a set of stict anti-nuke rules enforced by nations that already have nukes.

Of course it is. It's called the non-proliferation treaty and almost every nation in the world has agreed to it (exceptions India, Israel, Pakistan - NK has withdrawn from it).

Now I'm sorry you think that Ayatollah Khamenei not getting nuclear weapons is unfair, but such is life. And a vast majority of the world's nation agree on that.

[Bernadotte 0]

What international law or regulation is Iran breaking?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed.

Nothing in there about Iran breaking any rules.  Just that they are being investigated by the IAEA.  Meanwhile, the CIA has just reported that Iran is still at least 10 years away from having a nuke.  Surely the IAEA will not need 10 years to complete its investigation.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]From what I read prior to this latest crisis, the EU group was delaying an offer of aid.  Why the delay?

Not aid, but Russian nuclear fuel. Because Iran was not sticking to the agreed agenda.

Got a link about the agreed agenda that Iran is not sticking to?  

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Assuming Iran is violating some international law then why should the EU have to offer aid in the first place?

To give them an incentive to follow the rules.

I guess it might make more sense if we knew what rules Iran isn't following.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And why are Iran's rich Gulf neighbours not concerned enough to offer aid instead of the EU?

You mean like Israel?

Israel is a rich Gulf state?

Quote[/b] ]NK resumed their enrichment program, with the explicit purpose of building nukes in 2002, as a response to the "Axis of Evil" speech.

According to the 1994 agreement, the US promised NK two nuclear power stations by 2003.  At the time of the "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002, the US had not even begun to build either of them.

Quote[/b] ]Now I'm sorry you think that Ayatollah Khamenei not getting nuclear weapons is unfair, but such is life. And a vast majority of the world's nation agree on that.

Ha ha ha.  I didn't say that.  Nobody wants to see further proliferation.  However, the rules for controlling it should be applied with greater consistency and the consequences for violators and those who have withdrawn from the treaty should do more to discourage (rather than encourage) membership in the nuclear club.

[ralphwiggum 6]

It's been 10 years since Rabin's death.

http://www.cnn.com/2005....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) -- Tens of thousands of Israelis packed the Tel Aviv square where Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated 10 years ago to mourn the former prime minister and to express hopes that his memory would spur new efforts to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Rabin's killing by an ultranationalist Jew opposed to the premier's peace efforts with the Palestinians stunned the country a decade ago, revealing the depth of Israel's internal conflicts and badly damaging dreams of peace.

Those at the memorial rally Saturday sang songs of peace, held candles and waved Israeli flags as they remembered Rabin, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for signing the Oslo interim peace accords with the Palestinians.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think there are some serious concerns about the middle east at the moment.

First off: Al Qaeda has successfully built a base in Iraq to train its bombers and now export terror to other Arab countries witness the attacks on Jordan. Essentially the coalition has never had control of Iraq's borders and they are as porous as a sieve.

Secondly: The Iraq war has essentially acted as an excellent recruiting drive for Al Qaeda.

Thirdly: TBA and TBA2 have lost the political capital to call their nations to defence due to the wolf crying effect of:

1 Not finding WMD in Iraq

2 Not finding any link between Al Qaeda and Saddam

3 Not finding any link between 9/11 and Iraq

Fourthly: I feel the Coalition military is overstretched due to deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan and that as a result any ability to project power into the rest of the middle east particularly a possibly Nuclear Capable Iran is severely restricted and may be limited to Air methods only; which in my humble opinion is the equivalent of slapping then a couple of times while leaving the gun in their hand.

Fifthly: The CIA is blinded in its efforts to find out about WMD due to the traitors who blew the cover of the head of the CIA's WMD department and NOC agent, Valerie Wilson nee Plame. This essentially destroyed the CIA's WMD department as all of Valerie's field contacts and assets, grown over many years, were blown. Also the cover of every NOC field agent who served with her via the front company they used had their covers blown and all their contacts and assets are now blown.

For those of you who do not know what a Non Official Cover (NOC) agent is: In the TV series Alias Sydney Bristow played by Jennifer Garner is a NOC agent. The whole thing in Mission Impossible where Tom Cruise breaks in to the nations most secure vault dangling from wires is to get hold of NOC files. In other words a NOC agent is the highest level of security classification the nation has.

The direct effect of this blinding can be already be seen in the CIA's 10 year estimate for Iran to have nukes; while other nations with still existing WMD intelligence assets are giving estimates of a considerably shorter nature.

Frankly I think that any traitors found to have been involved in the outing of Valerie Wilson nee Plame should go the the chair, though I dare say some namby pamby liberals would disagree.

Regards Walker

[EiZei 0]

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/

This one is quite tough, I only got 6 right.