World Politics

[redtreviso]

No, they don't. They used to be called Persians until they specifically asked the Western media to stop calling them like that(I think after the Shah was dethroned).

Persian is a Greek word, which explains their dislike for it.

I don't think so.. They disregard the name Iran..They associated the name Iran with the shah and said they were from Persia.

 

[El Pistolero]

I don't think so.. They disregard the name Iran..They associated the name Iran with the shah and said they were from Persia.

I'm not sure when they decided to stop calling it Persia. Could be before the dethroning of the Shah or after, all I know is they like to be called Iranians now.

They don't disregard the name Iran because it's still called the Islamic republic of Iran officially.

edit: looked it up on wiki

The name of Iran (ایران) is the Modern Persian derivative from the Proto-Iranian term Aryānā,, meaning "Land of the Aryans", first attested in Zoroastrianism's Avesta tradition.[29][30][31][32] The term Ērān is found to refer to Iran in a 3rd century Sassanid inscription, and the Parthian inscription that accompanies it uses the Parthian term "aryān" in reference to Iranians.[33] However historically Iran has been referred to as Persia or similar (La Perse, Persien, Perzië, etc.) by the Western world, mainly due to the writings of Greek historians who called Iran Persēs (Πέρσης), meaning land of the Persians. In 1935 Rezā Shāh requested that the international community should refer to the country as Iran. Opposition to the name change led to the reversal of the decision, and in 1959 both names were to be used interchangeably.[34] Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 the official name of the country has been the "Islamic Republic of Iran."

 

[usedtobefast]

all the folks here from Iran say they are from Persia. we have a large population
of expat's here in socal. Persia just sounds way more cool than Iran.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Yes, there's something romantic, nostalgic sounding about Persia, or being Persian. You hear Iran and you think of a country with a lot of political problems, and oil. Plus, there was Bush calling them part of the Axis of Evil. And anyone over about the age of 40 may associate Iran with the hostage crisis and mess from that.

 

[craig1985]

Australia's Labor Party backs gay marriage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16014663

 

[rhubroma]

When you know how the working poor in the US cling to bigotry, guns and religion, why would you expect anything different from the working poor in Egypt?

Which is why I said "as expected."

What is truly discouraging, however, is how, outside of Europe at any rate, the world simply doesn't seem to have the stomach for a lay and secular society, or if it does, like China, without a regime (as in certain other places), or like India, without a myriad of obstacles and conflict (of a religious nature with Pak!stan). Although it can be equally asserted these days, that in the West we have a secular society without much democracy, money having become our god, profit and the corporate and financial markets our religion.

At any rate what is sensational, in the clamorous sense, is how the Egyptian vote unmistakably demonstrates that the Arab Spring has suddenly altered its parameters. According to yesterday's unofficial, though credible, reports: the Muslim Brothers obtained about 40-45% of the votes, the fundamentalist Salaphite party of al-Nour 20-25%, with the other non-religious factions, such as the liberals and the revolutionaries, together just the remaining 30-40%.

Now the truly unfortunate circumstance is that as of today the majority hinges on the radical Muslim al-Nour faction, which hopes for a partial, if not integral, application of Koranic law; and that the secular groups have been thus undermined by a legitimate power at the urns. Equally distressing is how now the military will forge an uneasy alliance with the secular political groups to become, paradoxically, a bastion behind which the liberals and revolutionaries can take refuge. So you have the ironic situation for which the vote outcome has accentuated the confrontation between the religious and military fronts. And that in this, perhaps ephemeral, stage of the Egyptian revolution, inaugurated by elections programed by the military to neutralize Tahrir Square, the protagonists of the political drama no longer have the same role: with the result that by popular decree (circa 70% of the eligible Egyptian population voted) it has been revealed the people's desire to have Parliament stamped with a religious imprint, while isolating the revolutionaries. Now it is the revolutionaries under the leadership of men like Essam-el-Erian that will turn to the Armed Forces, and vice versa, for sustainment.

And while the Muslim Brothers represent the moderate brand of the Muslim wing, Al Nur is of a completely different nature. Born in the wake of the revolution, it has straight away received financing from the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and is intransigent regarding the sale of alcohol, in not recognizing women's emancipation, in wanting to give a religious imprint to children's education and demands that the Sharia predominates over the republic's constitution. The fact that the Salaphite wing will have such a decisive weight in the formation of the new Egyptian state, means that under the present circumstances the most hardened revolutionaries and liberals will seek the voluntary collaboration of the military hierarchy to, in effect, partially suppress democracy, in taking measures to limit the institutional power of the religious radicals. So that yesterday's negative judgment of the overbearing authority of the generals, today appears to them as a necessary measure to relent what has been legitimized by popular vote, but what has become an intolerable religious fundamentalism that's difficult to live with, in the excesses of the Salaphite agenda.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Australia's Labor Party backs gay marriage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16014663

It's about bloody time one of the major political parties did.

 

[ramjambunath]

The Conficker worm

A cyber warfare expert claims he has linked the Stuxnet computer virus that attacked Iran's nuclear program in 2010 to Conficker, a mysterious worm that surfaced in late 2008 and infected millions of PCs.

Conficker was used to open back doors into computers in Iran, then infect them with Stuxnet, according to research from John Bumgarner, a retired U.S. Army special-operations veteran and former intelligence officer.

full article

 

[ramjambunath]

A good documentary by Al jazeera on Bahrain protests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaTKDMYOBOU

When the normally submissive women come out in protest, the message sent seems that much stronger. I'm not supporting suppression, definitely not, but it's just a mere observation.

There are some graphic scenes.

 

[blutto]

I don't have time for a full comment, but thanks for the good posts on Europe and it's situations guys.

Agree, the US system, and apparently much of the EU is not capitalist. People over here love to say we are, but that's hardly so. There is market trade, but it's heavily corrupted at the highest level where most of the money is. Hence my definition of the US political system being a kleptocracy.

...interesting comment on the idea/term capitalism...seems certain applications of capitalism have ended up giving capitalism a bad name ( though even a quick read of Marx, especially the later Marx, shows this development is not odd at all but how the capitalist playbook actually looks in its later stages.... )...one could draw the conclusion that it may have been premature to call a winner in The Cold War...in fact that game is still going on and by the end of it The West may up losing both The Cold War and WW2(...we were fighting facism remember...)...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the key to making framing work is that any language you substitute has to have 1) a connection to reality; and 2) move the language more strongly in the direction of the story you want to tell in a way that can't be co-opted by the other side. Most of Luntz' language on inequality here fails on one or both of these fronts. Let's peruse some examples:


1. Don't say 'capitalism.'

"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

The retreat from capitalism is astonishing, if not altogether surprising. The Occupy movement can't really take credit for this, as the polling on capitalism versus socialism has been been weak for years now since the economic crash. Still, there's no question that with income inequality having been successfully vaulted to the forefront of the national discourse by the Occupiers, the perception of capitalism as a system has taken a hit. But to retreat from capitalism as an idea isn't just a big loss for the right wing alone: the problem is that "economic freedom" can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. Single-payer healthcare and free public education means economic freedom. Forgiveness of student loan debt means economic freedom. George Lakoff wrote a great book Whose Freedom? on the way the Right and Left perceive that all-encompassing word. "Freedom" has always been a weak frame for the Right, because it's so easily muddled and put in more progressive terms. Shifting from "capitalism" to "freedom" and calling that a positive message development for the Right is like calling a "retreat" an "advance in the opposite direction." Moving on:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....this from...http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-luntz-losing-his-touch-or-are.html

Cheers

blutto

 

[Ferminal]

It's about bloody time one of the major political parties did.

It's amazing though that Gillard was firmly "No", thus there was no bill/vote in parliament, but now the party has decided "Yes", Gillard and her parliamentary backers decide "sure let's have a conscience vote in parliament".

Surely if they were going to have a conscience vote, it should have happened some time within the last 18 months, not after the collective ALP officially backed this stance. Or are they just going to have a conscience vote on (all) bills through parliament now?

 

[rhubroma]

... that any language you substitute has to have 1) a connection to reality; and 2) move the language more strongly in the direction of the story you want to tell in a way that can't be co-opted by the other side. Most of Luntz' language on inequality here fails on one or both of these fronts. Let's peruse some examples:


1. Don't say 'capitalism.'

"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

The retreat from capitalism is astonishing, if not altogether surprising. The Occupy movement can't really take credit for this, as the polling on capitalism versus socialism has been been weak for years now since the economic crash. Still, there's no question that with income inequality having been successfully vaulted to the forefront of the national discourse by the Occupiers, the perception of capitalism as a system has taken a hit. But to retreat from capitalism as an idea isn't just a big loss for the right wing alone: the problem is that "economic freedom" can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. Single-payer healthcare and free public education means economic freedom. Forgiveness of student loan debt means economic freedom. George Lakoff wrote a great book Whose Freedom? on the way the Right and Left perceive that all-encompassing word. "Freedom" has always been a weak frame for the Right, because it's so easily muddled and put in more progressive terms. Shifting from "capitalism" to "freedom" and calling that a positive message development for the Right is like calling a "retreat" an "advance in the opposite direction." Moving on:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....this from...http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-luntz-losing-his-touch-or-are.html

Cheers

blutto

Economic freedom to the market fundamentalists means being able to close down a factory here and open one over there (say China).

But closing down a factory here and opening one over there isn't economic freedom, but market totalitarianism.

You want to open up a factory in China? Fine. But you'll have to sell your goods in China, not here. It isn't possible that we have a system in which the liberal ideology/free-market rules over workers, but that's what capitalism, call it whatever the hell you want, has given us. And then to make further progress and economic growth possible only by practicing every form of financial alchemy until the debt ceiling reaches impossible limits, while concentrating actual wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

We need order to the chaos. We need more rules to curb the appetites, to end the free-for-all, winner-takes-everything system that prevails at the markets (basically globalization), for which humans have become an expedient of capital and not the other way around. Globalization without rules means that politics, whichever kind - democratic, socialist, theocratic, authoritarian, martian - is merely an ornamental set-piece to the market, an abstraction that controls the fate of men, which has usurped any form of collective plea bargaining. The market towers over the average guy on the street, just as it does the ministries of very size and status, like Goya's Colossus.

 

[blutto]

....those hard working freedom loving folks that toil in the banking industry bringing us services and products that make our lifes the joys that they are have recently felt the jackboot of dastardly socialist gubbermint on their collective necks...but one group of banking super heroes is fighting back....

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Go after the banks (GMAC is a bank; new name "Ally" — right), and the banks go after you. This is why we can't have nice things — like Rule of Law.

Think Progress:

This week, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that she will be suing five major banks for financial crimes that include wrongful foreclosure, in a major victory for the 99 Percent.

Today, one of those financial institutions announced that it would be retaliating against the state of Massachusetts for this lawsuit. GMAC now plans to end most of its lending in the state of Massachusetts, claiming that lending in the state is now “no longer viable“[.]
The writer, Zaid Jilani, then points us to this WSJ article, where the story apparently broke:

GMAC Mortgage, the mortgage lender of Ally Financial Inc., is exiting the vast majority of its lending in Massachusetts a day after the state sued it and other lenders over its allegedly improper foreclosure practices, a decision the state's attorney general called an admission.

The nation's fifth-largest mortgage originator said it "has taken this action because recent developments have led mortgage lending in Massachusetts to no longer be viable."
You'll need a subscription to read the whole thing, but the lead paragraphs are free, and that's all you need to know.

Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism as a nice analysis:

This move by GMAC, now Ally, is remarkably brazen. GMAC has effectively said that Massachusetts must hew to its demands of how to deal with foreclosures. It announced it is withdrawing from mortgage lending in the state in an effort to bring it to heel.

GMAC may be in a better position to exercise this sort of threat than other banks. Full service banks have broader business lines, so government bodies in the state could retaliate by moving other business (pension funds, cash management, payment services) from them.

This is very similar to the retaliation described in Gretchen Morgenson and Josh Rosner’s Reckless Endangerment, when Georgia had the temerity to try to pass tough lending laws[.]
Her headline:

GMAC Mugs Massachusetts
Let's see if this sticks. It's serious retaliation.

If you want to see what kinds of fraud are involved, try here or here (the underlying crime, not the sudden and cliché-ridden death).

ACTION OPPORTUNITY — Are you a GMAC customer? Care to move your loan? Care to tell them why?

The effect of your action could be similar to the effect of people moving money from Bank of America over the recent debit card fees. If other banks don't follow, GMAC is holding the bag. If they do follow, the gates are open for more retaliation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
...as an interesting aside GMAC has had....and may still have...a very strong connection to an outfit called Cerebrus....who rumour has it has made piles of money buying blood on the cheap in poor parts of the world and repackaging them as high value blood products for use by the medical industry...and no they are not based in Transylvania but there is no record of any of their principals ever being seen in broad daylight...?????....

...they were also the common thread in the financial woes experienced by GM and Chrysler not that long ago...they have worked very long and hard to put the vampire...errr...vulture into vulture capitalism ( the stuff that helps make America be the beacon on the hill or whatever that advertising jingle is....)

Cheers

blutto

 

[rhubroma]

 

[rhubroma]

 

[rhubroma]

 

[El Pistolero]

Yes, there's something romantic, nostalgic sounding about Persia, or being Persian. You hear Iran and you think of a country with a lot of political problems, and oil. Plus, there was Bush calling them part of the Axis of Evil. And anyone over about the age of 40 may associate Iran with the hostage crisis and mess from that.

I agree, but you would think that Iranians wouldn't like to be called "Persians" because it's a Greek word and the Greeks destroyed their great empire as if it was nothing

 

[Amsterhammer]

I thought this was worth quoting in its entirety. 'Merkozy' have a plan, due to be presented next week, I believe, for greater integration of fiscal planning and policy through the European Central Bank. Increasing the apparently somewhat limited powers of the ECB seems to be the road to salvation at the moment. I have absolutely no f***ing idea if I should believe any of this.

It's the European economy, stupid: US recovery hangs on solving debt crisis

America's economic revival, and Obama's re-election, may depend on whether Europe can push through the political change needed for the European Central Bank to act

A year ago most US politicians' interest in Greek spreads was confined to the relative merits of hummus and taramasalata. These days they are hot debate topics alongside Italian bond yields and a host of European financial arcana. The reason? It's the economy, stupid.

As the fragile US economy continues to rise slowly out of the abyss, Europe looks like its gravest threat. Apart from the occasional, and spectacularly unsuccessful, nudge from the sidelines the US has had to watch Europe's mounting debt crisis from afar and the sense of frustration is palpable.

"This is of huge importance to our own economy," Obama said last week after meeting Herman van Rompuy, European council president; José Manuel Barroso, European commission president, and others. "If Europe is contracting or if Europe is having difficulties, then it's much more difficult for us to create good jobs here at home."

Washington will again be closely watching this week's summit in Brussels. Treasury secretary Tim Geithner is so worried that he's flying to Europe. "US politicians probably haven't been this interested in Europe since world war two," jokes Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington-based non-partisan political newsletter.

"The economy is the big issue for the 2012 election and Europe is going to be a big part of that," he said. But Obama has to play a careful game at home as well as abroad. Attempts to push the pace of change have been been sharply rebuffed in Europe, while at home anything smacking of aid for US rivals across the Atlantic will be used against Obama as he tries to encourage the US's own fragile recovery.

Last week would-be Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul railed against the Federal Reserve's role in the co-ordinated move by central banks to prevent credit markets freezing. "The Fed is behaving much as it did during the 2008 financial crisis, only this time instead of bailing out politically well connected, too-big-to-fail firms it is bailing out profligate government spending [in Europe]," Paul says.

In fact, analysts point out that part of the reason the Fed acted is that US banks and money market funds have lent heavily to European banks, and would be left painfully exposed in the event of by a eurozone default.

Nevertheless, Paul's attacks could damage Obama if Europe becomes an election issue, says Gonzales, but the real danger to his re-election prospects is the economy and if Europe's woes "feed into the sentiment that we are heading in the wrong direction".

The EU's's share of US exports has dropped from more than a quarter in 1999 to less than 18% today but it is still worth $400bn and in our ever more connected world a downturn in Europe would hit the rest of the world too, rebounding on the US.

US firms also have huge sums of money directly invested in Europe. No one really seems sure how the euro's collapse would hit the US financial sector. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke plays down that risk, but investors are spooked. Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said Washington was gravely concerned that the European Central Bank had so far failed to follow the lead of the Fed, which has acted decisively to prop up the US economy, buying $900bn worth of US treasury bonds in two rounds of "quantitative easing".

The frustration fails to take account of fundamental differences between the US and Europe, he says. The Fed has far broader powers and a clear mandate compared with the ECB. It is also clear, Kirkegaard says, that the ECB has its own agenda.

"In my opinion it's been deliberate. The ECB does not want to commit until the Europeans agree to tighter fiscal union. Market mayhem is an effective way of reaching political goals. If they'd done what the markets had wanted a month ago, Silvio Berlusconi would still be in power. Is that good for Italy or Europe?"

Radical action by the ECB cannot come fast enough for Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank. "The Europeans need to let the ECB buy them some time. Political solutions will not come quickly enough," he says. "If the ECB can act, that for me is the trump card, then we can start focusing on other things."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/03/eurozone-crisis-threatens-us-recovery

 

[blutto]

....ok...I may be beating a dead horse here but this such a nice summary statement that I couldn't resist throwing it out here...and no it is not to my mind ideal but it hits a lot of points that should be mentioned....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There si a distinct difference between Capitalism and Crapitalism.

For over a decade we've seen nothing but Crapitalism, specifically Crony Crapitalism, Cocktail-Wienie-Party Crapitalism, and the entrenched Conservatiive Crapitalists are not about to give up their Crapitalist Monopoly without a fight.

ENRON. Bernie Madoff. Lehman Brothers. Arthur Andersen. Bear Stearns. AIG. Washington Mutual. Countrywide Financial. Chase Bank. Goldman Sachs. Republican Party. All either were or still are Crapitalists. Hank Paulson. Tim Geithner. Larry Summers. Michael Bloomberg. **** Cheney. George W. Bush. Phil Gramm. The Koch brothers. All the Republican presidential nominee contenders...Crapitalists. Kartl Rove. Frank Luntz. **** Armey. Crapitalists.

So, the OWS message (or at least one of them) is very simple; we like captialism, but conservative Crapitalism is a load of crap that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

For over thirty years, the Crapitalists have subverted our democracy, subverted our economy, sabotaging a fair and equitable economic marketplace, sabotaging in the process the well-being of 99 percent of American citizens and the very future of our nation's children.

The Crapitalists were against Glass-Steagall, finally destroying it, but Glass-Steagall was just one of many regulations getting in the way of Crapitalism. Environmental protection laws, consumer protectoin laws, regulations that get in the way of the Crapitalists. So we end up with "too big to fail" and "too big to jail" Crapitalists crashing the economy in 2008 (at the end of the Bush Crony-Crapitalism administration). These Crapitalists, instead of taking their lumps, then got their Crony-Crapitalist politicians to bail them out with U.S. taxpayer money (the visible bail-out) while at the same time having the Federal Reserve pump $7.7 trillion into their pockets at 0.01 percent interest.

I'm all for capitalism. It's this criminally corrupt Crony-Crapitalism that stinks. And the Republican Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Crony Crapitalists, the monopolists, today's Robber Barons, which is why Crony-Crapitalist Republicans are coordinating their effects to crush anyone challenging their democracy-destructive Crapitalism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers

blutto

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Good post there Blutto. I think you nailed it. To paraphrase a recently used thought: It's socialism for the 1%, and crapitalism for the rest of us.

 

[auscyclefan94]

It's about bloody time one of the major political parties did.

you could just vote for the Greens...lol.

It's amazing though that Gillard was firmly "No", thus there was no bill/vote in parliament, but now the party has decided "Yes", Gillard and her parliamentary backers decide "sure let's have a conscience vote in parliament".

Surely if they were going to have a conscience vote, it should have happened some time within the last 18 months, not after the collective ALP officially backed this stance. Or are they just going to have a conscience vote on (all) bills through parliament now?

Just thought I'd have my say on this. If anything this will damage the Labor party. The people who supported gay marriage strongly would of voted Greens which is ultimately a vote for Labor. The Labor supporters who are strongly against Gay marriage (there are quite a few) will certainly turn against them and I doubt they would vote for the Greens if that was the case which means support for the LNP, an independent or a small minor party. Anyway, it ain't going to get through Parliament. You have 50% of the Labor party + 100% of the LNP against it does not mean it will get through Parliament.

I think the ALP would be better to discuss some more important issues at this conference. Seriously, Gay marriage? Marriage is basically just a certificate saying you are a 'officially' couple. I think discussing issues that affect the environment, the economy, etc would be better and is more important.

In other news, a Labor MP has said that Rudd is going to challenge for leadership around the next federal budget which is May.

 

[rhubroma]

Good post there Blutto. I think you nailed it. To paraphrase a recently used thought: It's socialism for the 1%, and crapitalism for the rest of us.

For me it was crapola to start with.

 

[Spare Tyre]

It's amazing though that Gillard was firmly "No", thus there was no bill/vote in parliament, but now the party has decided "Yes", Gillard and her parliamentary backers decide "sure let's have a conscience vote in parliament".

Surely if they were going to have a conscience vote, it should have happened some time within the last 18 months, not after the collective ALP officially backed this stance. Or are they just going to have a conscience vote on (all) bills through parliament now?

Yes, there is something ridiculous about the way it has been handled. The only sense I can make of it is that Labor is afraid of losing votes on this issue. Silly them. IMO they'd be better off standing up proudly to pronounce the importance of the principle of non-discrimination for Australian citizens. AFAIK the issue has the support of the majority of the Australian population anyway (though not the majority of Herald Sun readers, whose comments on the issue yesterday were terribly depressing).

I think the ALP would be better to discuss some more important issues at this conference. Seriously, Gay marriage? Marriage is basically just a certificate saying you are a 'officially' couple. I think discussing issues that affect the environment, the economy, etc would be better and is more important.

Seriously? The efforts of the governing party to end a form of state-based discrimination against some Australian citizens is something you don't think is important?

 

[Ferminal]

Seriously? The efforts of the governing party to end a form of state-based discrimination against some Australian citizens is something you don't think is important?

Not enough "working families" speak.

Just thought I'd have my say on this. If anything this will damage the Labor party. The people who supported gay marriage strongly would of voted Greens which is ultimately a vote for Labor. The Labor supporters who are strongly against Gay marriage (there are quite a few) will certainly turn against them and I doubt they would vote for the Greens if that was the case which means support for the LNP, an independent or a small minor party. Anyway, it ain't going to get through Parliament. You have 50% of the Labor party + 100% of the LNP against it does not mean it will get through Parliament.

I do not really care for the politics, just about the outcomes. The whole idea of the conscience vote is to achieve what you mention - this undermines the consensus achieved by the ALP at the conference which is why I'm a bit bemused.

 

[python]

just watched the amazingly candid interview with the former head of pak--istani intelligence.

he expanded on my earlier projections that we are likely witnessing some fundamental geopolitical events due to the closure of supply routes. (iow, realignment of china, india, the us and russia relations)

without calling it an ultimatum, he bluntly explained his country’s position. If america does not meet 4 or 5 specific conditions, the road will stay closed and nato will be isolated further.

he expected the americans to cave in b/c nato has only 15 day supply in afghanistan. the alternative supply through russia, he said, is completely inadequate to meet the needs.

besides, he revealed that russia (and china) are far from being dispassionate observers or giving the us a carte blanche. for example, he revealed that while russia is holding control of the only other overland route, it just offered pak--istan an unprecedented financial and economic aid, he said, america never offered !

if i understood him correctly, the general’s opinion of the conditions were - accept pak--istans primary role in the area, reduce american embassy, set forth conditions for a resolution of kashmir, balance out india’s and israel’s role in afghanistan with pak-istan’s…

i can’t see the only superpower caving in. but i don’t exclude a secret compromise where the us will agree to some conditions as it essentially has no cute choices (besides the ineffective threats and rhetoric).

nato cornered themselves ?