Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (20618)	10/8/2009 6:48:51 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 103300

October 8, 2009 The Gathering Storm Dark Omens for the US in Afghanistan By PAUL FITZGERALD and ELIZABETH GOULD Now officially in its ninth year since the invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. should have little reason to recount, in Chalmers Johnson’s words, the Sorrows of Empire. By now everyone on the planet knows by heart the tragic tale. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan without a clear understanding of its goals and after eight years remains as torn as ever over defining them. It was hoped that the incoming Obama administration and its new AfPak strategy would finally end the drift toward quagmire, but that hope is fading fast. Last week, AfPak architect Bruce Riedel revealed in the Financial Times that “Pretty much six months has since gone by without a rigorous implementation of what was agreed to and that has only made a bad situation worse.” As Washington’s paralysis deepens and Afghanistan slips further into chaos, the U.S. faces a crisis of credibility. Can Washington shift its focus to nation-building and help the Afghan people restore their ravaged nation to health? Or should the U.S. continue to pursue what seems at this point an opium dream; hunting an elusive Al Qaeda, who are “believed” to be hiding in Pakistan? Last week one major player on the world scene made their opinion known, but nobody in the U.S. was listening. Amidst the deafening internal debate in Washington, a startling event occurred. On Monday September 28, in the Chinese government owned English language newspaper China Daily, an article titled, “Afghan peace needs a map,” by Li Qinggong, deputy secretary-general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies, stated flatly that the time had come for the United States to withdraw from Afghanistan. “To promote much-needed reconciliation among the parties concerned, the US should end its military action. The war has neither brought the Islamic nation peace and security as the Bush administration originally promised, nor brought any tangible benefits to the US itself. On the contrary, the legitimacy of the US military action has been under increasing doubt.” A Chinese challenge to the war’s legitimacy is of no minor consequence. The Chinese have their own well established agenda regarding the growth of Al Qaeda extremism on their southern border. A July report in China Daily claimed that for the first time in its 82 year history, the 2.3 million-strong People’s Liberation Army has drawn up separate regulations for its anti-terrorism operations. The Chinese view extremists and separatists as terrorists and employed harsh military force on Muslim Uyghur separatists in their own Xinjiang province last July. What should be a wakeup call to Washington is the willingness of an official Chinese newspaper to interfere in what would normally be viewed as an internal U.S. government struggle, at a decisive and vulnerable moment in its evolution of the administration’s AfPak policy. Of shocking interest was Li Qinggong’s desire to separate the U.S. military from its own commander and chief, who “Since taking office,… has been under pressure from the Pentagon for military reinforcements in Afghanistan.,” advising him that, “The calls of war opponents over that of supporters will give the young US president the best chance to extricate himself from the Pentagon’s pressure.” Coming at a critical moment when U.S. economic power is in decline and China’s on the rise, Li Qinggong’s message should be taken as a serious sign that if Washington is not willing to decide the limits of its empire, the Chinese are. China’s involvement in Afghanistan is nothing new, but until now they have kept their ambitions largely to themselves. Although denied by Beijing, the Chinese played a supporting role in pushing the Soviets to invade in December 1979 by arming and training Islamist extremists in Xinjiang province. According to a British Round Table of April 1981, (No. 282) “earlier in 1979 China had already tried to set up a Muslim Republic of Pamir on the Afghanistan territory of Badakhshan and the Wakhan corridor.” In the last few years China has emerged as a major player in both Afghanistan’s and Pakistan’s economy. In 2007, China’s Metallurgical group won a $3.5 billion bid to develop Afghanistan’s Aynak copper field in Logar province. In Pakistan, China’s development of the strategic port of Gwadar on the Makran coast has been described as Pakistan’s flagship infrastructure project. But should the Chinese decide that the time has come to draw a line on American involvement in Afghanistan and flex their growing influence in the region, the war that the U.S. has been fighting for the last eight years will seem merely as child’s play to what is to come. Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are authors of "Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story," published by City Lights. They can be reached at www.invisiblehistory.com

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (20618)	10/8/2009 11:53:44 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

By BRODY MULLINS WASHINGTON -- The House expanded its yearlong ethics probe into Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel on Thursday, the latest blow to the embattled New York Democrat. The House Ethics Committee said it would broaden its inquiry to determine if Mr. Rangel filed inaccurate forms with Congress disclosing his personal assets. This summer, Mr. Rangel updated his personal-financial-disclosure forms for the past few years, revealing more than $500,000 in assets he hadn't before made public. Emile Milne, a spokesman for Mr. Rangel, called the announcement a "technicality," saying that "as a practical matter, today's announcement is nothing new." He said the ethics panel was already conducting a wide-ranging review of Mr. Rangel. Lawmakers are required to file annual reports with Congress disclosing their assets and liabilities. If the Ethics Committee finds that Mr. Rangel intentionally sought to hide assets, the panel could refer the matter to the Justice Department, which could pursue a criminal case. But the ethics panel, staffed by fellow lawmakers, has traditionally been more lenient. The broadened investigation could nonetheless pose problems for Mr. Rangel and other congressional Democrats. "This is just one step, but there have been a number of steps already," said Robert Walker, an ethics lawyer with Wiley Rein LLP who recently was the staff director for the House and Senate ethics panels. On Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans engaged in a heated fight on the House floor over a Republican effort to force Mr. Rangel to step down as chairman of the tax-writing panel until the ethics panel completes its probe. Democrats defeated the measure soundly, but for the first time in three similar votes over the past year, two Democrats voted with Republicans, signaling a possible softening of Democratic support for Mr. Rangel. The Ethics Committee said it has authorized nearly 150 subpoenas, interviewed 34 witnesses and reviewed 12,000 pages of documents in the probe. Mr. Rangel is already being probed for a range of allegations, from failing to disclose income on a rental property to using his official House letterhead when asking for donations to an educational center that bears his name. He has denied any willful wrongdoing.

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (20618)	10/9/2009 9:27:59 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

Re: "What was underestimated was the perverted love affair many Iraqis had with their dictator" Not the VERY LARGE MAJORITY of the Iraqi population that is either Shia or Kurdish! Mostly only the minority Sunni population (perhaps 20% of so of Iraqis) were ever really backing the Baathists. That is because they were the ones who benefited in the old order by keeping the majority down. Now, the situation is reversed. Shia are on top (& Kurds largely self-governed), and Iran has come out a big winner....